An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

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

I do agree with it.  

 

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

That sounded to me like you were agreeing that that is the only thing a good parent could reasonably do.

That's not a quote from me.  Just clarifying that you were quoting one of the comments that someone else wrote.

 

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'll take you at your word that you are not saying this, then. 

Thanks, I appreciate that.

 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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):

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

I am very glad to see this joint task force.  I am hopeful one of the things we will get out of it are well done statistics and analyses and not analyses based on unproved assumptions.  

Even a low rate of teen suicide qualifies for concern for me.  I am not in any way saying the topic should not be talked about or researched, I have instead been of the opinion tons more research is necessary and it is a shame that people are making pronouncements now that may set people's ideas on what is needed such that when actual effective approaches are found, they are dismissed or funding is limited because there is so much prior investment in the treatment based on gut approaches.  

Obviously you don't ignore a current child at risk because broad approaches aren't known, you can't delay acting if the need is immediate, but global governmental and charitable approaches need to be cautious.  Think of how some suicide prevention programs at schools actually led to more suicides in the past, not less, due to cluster suicides.

The finding that LGBTs that leave their faith are at higher risk should make everyone cautious about "common sense" approaches.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

Maybe.  Or, the response given might have added more fuel to the fire.  It's really hard to know.  God knows the perfect answers (and sometimes the answer is silence, at least for a time), but none of us are God.  Sometimes our answers make things worse.

(Again, just pointing out that it's really hard to say 'this would have been best' in these kinds of situations were so much is unknown).

[Maestrophil]

The part where I truly struggle as a member who wants to be as loving and accepting as possible is with the romance and sex portion of the discussion.

Bro. Weed mentions that he believed that everyone is entitled to romantic love - I bristle at the word "entitled."  Are we really entitled to romance, good sex lives?  I would wager to say there are MANY temple marriages that lack both of those elements and still succeed.  Should those people just call it off so they can get what they "deserve"?  Or is a commitment in the temple something that means sacrificing self - and IF you get romance and good sex with it - all the better for you.  

In order for me to be "accepting" of LGBTia people in the way I feel they and their defenders want me to as an LDS, I would need to reject the importance of the Law of Chastity, and the statement of gender importance in the Proclamation to the Family.  I firmly believe in my soul that the Lord loves all his children, and so should I.  I don't judge anyone for choosing to violate the laws of the church in order to feel happier in a gay lifestyle, just like I don't judge my hetero friends who choose to live outside the bounds set by the church (and I believe by the Lord).  Yet, their choices are outside the bounds that LDS are told the Lord has set.  

 

How do we reconcile this?  If I hold fast to feeling that it is (at least currently)not possible to live in an active same sex relationship and maintain temple worthiness or active membership, can I ever truly be considered accepting by the LGBT community.  That is the impasse I see.

 

 

[Calm]

53 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.

I think the first important step is to find out why they are coming home more depressed.  This may require allowing them to stay home until they are stable enough to talk about it, but ensuring that such removal does not make things worse...perhaps by setting up social interactions with other church members the parents know the child responds in a positive way to, engages more with and leads to greater involvement.

The solution may not be withdrawal from all of Church, but only those parts that trigger depression or anxiety.

We no longer required our daughter to attend church when it was obvious it was setting off anxiety attacks and we could not find a way to help her desensitize. Nor could we find anything outside of family involvement due to her having no friends and no ability at the time to make friends (we had moved, she was still in denial about her diabetes...and several other factors led to a perfect storm for her)  She is also now a nonbeliever and currently only socially active within limited extended family.  If we had stayed in Canada, we would have definitely set up home visits and outings with her church and school friends once it became obvious group activities were too overwhelming.  Maybe she would still be involved with others.  Otoh, she received better medical treatment down here allowing for eventual control of her diabetes, so I try not to think of what might have been.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

The finding that LGBTs that leave their faith are at higher risk should make everyone cautious about "common sense" approaches.

But, which "faith"?  This was not saying that a youth who is gay is at a higher risk for leaving a faith that teaches that their children cannot be a member of the church if they marry.  Are they to continue attending a church that teaches they are an apostate if they are true to and accept themselves as they are (attracted to someone of the same sex and a desire to be with and marry that person)?  Do you think that's healthy for a young person who is gay to hear and be taught?

I firmly believe that for many (most?) youth. remaining close to the Savior and having faith and being spiritual can put them at a lower risk for suicide.  If they can truly feel the Savior's love, this will make a difference in their lives.  But many are not feeling that love when they attend the Mormon church each week.  

So more needs to go into a general statement or claim such as your's above, IMO.

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

The part where I truly struggle as a member who wants to be as loving and accepting as possible is with the romance and sex portion of the discussion.

Bro. Weed mentions that he believed that everyone is entitled to romantic love - I bristle at the word "entitled."  Are we really entitled to romance, good sex lives?  I would wager to say there are MANY temple marriages that lack both of those elements and still succeed.  Should those people just call it off so they can get what they "deserve"?  Or is a commitment in the temple something that means sacrificing self - and IF you get romance and good sex with it - all the better for you.  

I struggled with this as well because, in the end, I don't believe that God condones the dissolution of a temple marriage (or any marriage) because one of the spouses isn't get the amount or kind of sex that they want.  At the same time though, i recognize that sex is an important part of marriage that would be very difficult to sacrifice.  But I still believe that God often asks for difficult sacrifices.

I just can't imagine that God sees "I wanted romance" as an acceptable answer to the question "Why did you abandon your temple marriage?"  But I also know He is loving and merciful in how He deals with our weaknesses.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, which "faith"?  This was not saying that a youth who is gay is at a higher risk for leaving a faith that teaches that their children cannot be a member of the church if they marry.  Are they to continue attending a church that teaches they are an apostate if they are true to and accept themselves as they are (attracted to someone of the same sex and a desire to be with and marry that person)?  Do you think that's healthy for a young person who is gay to hear and be taught?

I firmly believe that for many (most?) youth. remaining close to the Savior and having faith and being spiritual can put them at a lower risk for suicide.  If they can truly feel the Savior's love, this will make a difference in their lives.  But many are not feeling that love when they attend the Mormon church each week.  

So more needs to go into a general statement or claim such as your's above, IMO.

 

"This was not saying that a youth who is gay is at a higher risk for leaving a faith that teaches that their children cannot be a member of the church if they marry."

Nor, iirc, was it saying that they were at a lower risk for leaving a faith that teaches anything specific.

When the research has something to say about specific teachings leading to less risk to leave, then I will definitely add it to my comments.  At the moment it is pretty basic.

Until then I think parents should be talking to kids without making assumptions ahead of time what is troubling them most, but let the kids figure it out without leading questions etc.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Calm

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am very glad to see this joint task force.  I am hopeful one of the things we will get out of it are well done statistics and analyses and not analyses based on unproved assumptions.  

Even a low rate of teen suicide qualifies for concern for me.  I am not in any way saying the topic should not be talked about or researched, I have instead been of the opinion tons more research is necessary and it is a shame that people are making pronouncements now that may set people's ideas on what is needed such that when actual effective approaches are found, they are dismissed or funding is limited because there is so much prior investment in the treatment based on gut approaches.  

Obviously you don't ignore a current child at risk because broad approaches aren't known, you can't delay acting if the need is immediate, but global governmental and charitable approaches need to be cautious.  Think of how some suicide prevention programs at schools actually led to more suicides in the past, not less, due to cluster suicides.

This is so true.  As we have seen, "gut approaches" such as encouraging a youth to leave the church of their origin, can actually increase risk for suicide. More research definitely needs to be done to improve interventions!

The other "gut approach" that I am seeing on this thread is to blame and change doctrinal beliefs, but the evidence also shows that conflict with doctrinal beliefs is not the problem.  Once internalized homophobia is accounted for, the risks associated with doctrinal teachings practically vanishes.  In other words, doctrines are not the problem...shaming is! I have personally experienced this in my addiction recovery.  All of the negative psychological impact and shame associated with my addiction did not originate from church doctrines regarding pornography, they originated from the shaming messages and taboo attitudes. 

If we as a church and people, could better understand and address the issue of toxic shame, I am confident that suicide and addiction rates would drop significantly.  Unfortunately, toxic shame is poorly understood in the church. 

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

"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.

It was not in the chapel. And no one from the church video'd it. But it seems that it really did happen. The bishop that coordinated it volunteers at the Encircle house in Provo. 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

And when the research has something to say, then I will definitely add it to my comments.  At the moment it is pretty basic.

Until then I think parents should be talking to kids without making assumptions ahead of time what is troubling them most, but let the kids figure it out without leading questions etc.

I agree.  I'm just saying that there are all different "faiths" and that was a pretty general statement.  We have to look at specific faiths to see what is actually being taught to a youth at risk to determine whether or not it is helping them or doing more harm.

Communication is very important, of course....I agree.

Edited January 29, 2018 by ALarson

[kiwi57]

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Sadly, it’s Church doctrine that children with parents who are in a SSM are not to be baptised unless or until they reach the age of 18 AND denounce their parents.

Wrong.

But thanks for playing.

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

And in the meantime their parents are labelled as Apostates akin to muderers who are to be summarily excommunicated from the Church.

Wrong again.

In the meantime, the adults in the same sex relationship - one or the other of which may or may not be one of the child's actual parents - are in a state of apostasy, and are subject to the normal processes of Church discipline. Apostates are not "akin to murderers" and excommunication is not carried out "summarily."

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church may well be correct in that it is how God and Jesus want their organisation on earth to operate. But if that is the case, my conscience tells me that God & Jesus are not people I want to be associated with. My conscience also tells me that this isn’t the case and that Church leaders are getting things badly wrong, at the expense of young lives. It is they, the leaders, who are the Apostates in my opinion.

If Jesus had received the letter outlined in the OP, would His response have been no response whatsoever? If the answer to that is NO, then just who did the FP consult, if not Jesus, about their decision to ignore the letter completely?

We can speculate all we like about actions we know nothing about, but speculation is not evidence.

[ALarson]

1 hour 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.

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."

I hope the video is posted.  I'd love to see it and listen to the words of those who spoke.

I think every ward could possibly have such a meeting.  I have learned that very few are not touched by or have a family member or friend who is gay.  Having them actually speak to members....make it real and personal and put a face to this issue....could be so beneficial in so many ways.  Any way that we can open up communication and listen.

Thanks for posting this, Tacenda.  Please post if you learn the video is available.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, which "faith"?  This was not saying that a youth who is gay is at a higher risk for leaving a faith that teaches that their children cannot be a member of the church if they marry.  Are they to continue attending a church that teaches they are an apostate if they are true to and accept themselves as they are (attracted to someone of the same sex and a desire to be with and marry that person)?  Do you think that's healthy for a young person who is gay to hear and be taught?

I firmly believe that for many (most?) youth. remaining close to the Savior and having faith and being spiritual can put them at a lower risk for suicide.  If they can truly feel the Savior's love, this will make a difference in their lives.  But many are not feeling that love when they attend the Mormon church each week.  

So more needs to go into a general statement or claim such as your's above, IMO.

The study is clear that it is talking about churches that cause conflict between a persons faith and sexual identity.  That includes, Mormonism and most Christian religions in general.  Yes, gay Christians are going to feel at odds with their faith teachings.  However, the increased stressors of leaving a religion can push already vulnerable people over the edge.  I wouldn't just assume that Mormonism is a special case.  Our teachings regarding homosexual activity is not really that different from other Christian churches. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, kiwi57 said:

Wrong.

But thanks for playing.

Wrong again.

kiwi, please at least try to have a civil discussion here.  I'm sure you knew what this poster meant (I agree they could have been more clear)....but these are the types of comments that shut discussion down.  Most here are really trying to openly communicate (even if there are definite disagreements).

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Our teachings regarding homosexual activity is not really that different from other Christian churches. 

In general, yes.  But how many will not allow the baptism of children with parents who are involved in a SSM?  How many call those who enter a SSM an apostate and excommunicate them?  (Honest question, if you know.....I'm not aware of any others who hold to all of this). 

Is Mormonism specifically mentioned in the study regarding the "faiths"?  (another sincere question).  

ETA:

pogi, do you have a link to the study you're referencing?  (You may have already posted it, but I looked back through some of your posts just now and couldn't find it).

Thanks!  

Edited January 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Jane_Doe]

(Addressing this a little out of order, for a more logical reply)

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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.

I'm ok- the Savior is one AMAZING healer!  And why my journey left me with scars, it also has left me with a large heart for those who likewise have to endure hard things, particularly in regards to mental illness, suicide, or sexuality.  Hence my involvement with this thread.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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 phrased my question poorly- my apologies.  

For me, a trigger was school in general, not the specific teacher (because we moved away from that teacher shortly after bad things happened).  For me, being in a class at all was a trigger, with additional triggers of seeing PDA or being asked "who do have a crush on", and many other things found in schools (and other places too).   Hence, when I ask if you think "should my parents have withdrawn me from schooling permanently" I wasn't talking about just that one school/class but ALL schooling.  And schooling is not just a k-12 thing, but also includes sending your kids to schools, etc.  

Again, my apologies for poorly stating my question earlier.  

[Bobbieaware]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes but there is a fix for that.  That being for the parents to sign a declaration that they understand the Church position and that the position will not change and they agree to the child being baptized anyway.  Such a document would then bring ridicule on the parents instead of the church since the parents made that choice ahead of time and full warning of what to expect.

I don’t believe you’ve thought this option through. I’m sure the Church leaders considered this possible course of action and rejected it as unviable and fraught with potential danger. You see, the so-called “journalists” (propagandists) of the progressive establishment media are not at all concerned about being fair and impartial when an opportunity to slam the ‘knuckle-dragging’ LDS Church comes along. Even if the parents give their signed permission the media will simply excuse them and say they were either naive, uninformed or too trusting when they signed off.

Those children who would have come forth to accuse the Church of mental abuse and familial alienation may have even turned some of their anger toward their “unwise” parents for allowing the Church to “mess with their minds,” but you can bet your bottom dollar any culpability on the part of the parents will be minimized, if not outright ignored by the media, and the purveyors of hate will pull out all the stops when it comes to damning the Church and claiming it’s an enemy of humanity. Facts will be skewed any way they need to be skewed with the knowledge that their fellow “journalists” will cover for them and that any corrections to factual errors they are compelled to be made will be buried amidst a mountain of ink on the ‘back pages.’ 

The only wise and viable way to avoid these pitfalls is to let such voting-age young people decide for themselves if they want to join the Church.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

(Addressing this a little out of order, for a more logical reply)

I'm ok- the Savior is one AMAZING healer!  And why my journey left me with scars, it also has left me with a large heart for those who likewise have to endure hard things, particularly in regards to mental illness, suicide, or sexuality.  Hence my involvement with this thread.

Thanks, Jane.  I really do love having your perspective and appreciate your involvement here.

27 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I phrased my question poorly- my apologies.  

For me, a trigger was school in general, not the specific teacher (because we moved away from that teacher shortly after bad things happened).  For me, being in a class at all was a trigger, with additional triggers of seeing PDA or being asked "who do have a crush on", and many other things found in schools (and other places too).   Hence, when I ask if you think "should my parents have withdrawn me from schooling permanently" I wasn't talking about just that one school/class but ALL schooling.  And schooling is not just a k-12 thing, but also includes sending your kids to schools, etc.  

Again, my apologies for poorly stating my question ear

I understood what you were trying to express and I think it was a good point to make.  

I think that if a parent does choose to remove their child from attending church, it should not be a definite, permanent removal.   It may end up being permanent, of course....but the option of them returning to activity should always be there too.

[Jane_Doe]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks, Jane.  I really do love having your perspective and appreciate your involvement here.

I understood what you were trying to express and I think it was a good point to make.  

I think that if a parent does choose to remove their child from attending church, it should not be a definite, permanent removal.   It may end up being permanent, of course....but the option of them returning to activity should always be there too.

I very much agree with this post.  In my view, any child who is going through a struggle should have their parents at their back.  If there needs to be a *temporary* removal from a harmful environment so a hurt person can get healed, that's the proper move.  The goal of course being to GET that healing and then get back engaged.  Like for me, a temporary removal from a school to heal would have probably been a good thing-- and then of course get back into the school/larger community.  It would be not a good move to say "school is evil, never going to go back, never going to heal, going to tear it all down".  Likewise if I had a gay kid who needed a temporary break to heal from church involvement: heal the wounds, make sure they are knowing they are loved, and come back to Church.  

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Wrong.

But thanks for playing.

Wrong again.

In the meantime, the adults in the same sex relationship - one or the other of which may or may not be one of the child's actual parents - are in a state of apostasy, and are subject to the normal processes of Church discipline. Apostates are not "akin to murderers" and excommunication is not carried out "summarily."

We can speculate all we like about actions we know nothing about, but speculation is not evidence.

In terms of the children of gay parents being baptised:

To get that permission, the policy states that a request must be made through a mission president or a regional church leader, and only after certain requirements are met. Those requirements are that a child is committed to living church doctrine and "specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage," is 18 "and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3144035&itype=CMSID

So - must be over 18, must disavow their parents marriage, and must not live with their own parents, even when over the age of 18.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Calm]

" In fact, a number of studies have found that measures of religiosity, across religious affiliations (e.g. Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist), were not associated with any mental health outcomes for LGB adults (Barnes & Meyer, 2012; Harris et al., 2008; Shilo & Savaya, 2012) and very little is known about this association among individuals who are transgender. For researchers who explore minority stress, these findings may seem counter-intuitive, as religiosity has been associated with higher rates of internalized homophobia among LGBT adults (Barnes & Meyer, 2012, Kralovec et al., 2012; Shilo & Savaya, 2012) and internalized homophobia has been associated with negative mental health outcomes (Kralovec et al., 2012; Shilo & Savaya, 2012)."

"Leaving one’s religion of origin due to reported conflict is associated with a decrease in internalized homophobia..."

"Internalized homophobia was found to be associated with two of the suicide outcome variables. A higher rate of internalized homophobia was associated with a higher odds of reporting suicidal thoughts in the last month (OR=1.193, 95%CI=1.114–1.278) and reporting chronic suicidal thoughts over fleeting thoughts (OR=1.271, 95%CI=1.093–1.479). Internalized homophobia was not found to be significantly associated with suicide attempt in the last year."

"All three indicators (i.e., religious upbringing with unresolved conflict, parental anti-homosexual religious beliefs, and leaving one’s religion of origin due to conflict) were found to be associated with suicidal thoughts in the last month, parental anti-homosexual religious beliefs were found to be associated with chronic suicidal thoughts, and two (i.e., parental anti-homosexual religious beliefs, and leaving one’s religion of origin due to conflict) were found to be associated with suicide attempt in the last year."

"Further, leaving one’s religion of origin due to conflict was associated with a higher odds of suicidal thoughts...and over two times the odds of a suicide attempt in the last year."

So apparently even when there is unresolved conflict that one assumes would be resolved by leaving their faith that is apparently the source of conflict, there were twice as many suicide attempts and such conflict has no association with suicide attempts even though there was association with short term ideation.

Assuming it is better to remove a child from an environment that contains conflict appears to be a faulty assumption according to the best research we have now.  Hopefully future research will identify what is protective and what is damaging and it can be incorporated effectively in a Mormon and other conflicted religious settings.  If not, hopefully research will lead to other options that won't have increased suicide rates attached to them.

----

"As internalized homophobia increases the odds of reporting chronic suicidal thoughts compared to fleeting suicidal thoughts increases (OR=1.283, 95%CI=1.079–1.525), and the relationship between parental anti-homosexual religious beliefs is no longer significant."

Really makes me curious as to what is going on and how it all interrelates, it appears to me that it is not going to be easy to separate out causes and effects.

----

One criticism of the research....

The definition of "anti-homosexual beliefs" was overbroad ("Anti-homosexual parental religious beliefs were assessed with the item: “have your parents’ religious beliefs made it more difficult for you to tell them about your sexuality?” A response of “yes” indicated the experience of conflict through the form of normative parental religious beliefs") and needs to be studied in detail to see what beliefs matter, how much the actual belief matters in comparison to how the parent expresses that belief...does simple awareness that a parent believes gay marriage is not approved of by God sufficient for triggering conflict even if the parent keeps their mouth shut on that topic or presents it as more something that is not currently understood and effectively shares their love and desire for their child's happiness as well as a willingness to allow the child to take their own path when that time comes or does actual conflict arise because there is frequently expressed condemnation of homosexuals and/or homosexual behaviour or is it more what emotions are being expressed by the parent and less the specific belief.  

My daughter delayed telling us she had bisexual feelings because she knew we would be disappointed for her, not in her.  She didn't want us to be in pain for her as she explained it.  She also has stated while severely depressed, she never experienced suicidal thoughts.  Nor has she identified her sexual preferences as a source of depression or anxiety (I think they came late enough her obsessive habits of anxiety/depression thoughts were already well established).  While we would definitely qualify under the study's methodology as having "anti-homosexual religious beliefs", it appears to me it is more complicated than how presented in the study, assuming she is as open about her feelings as she is claiming to be.  

And I see a problem with including her reluctance in the same category as a child who is delaying telling their parents because they fear being beaten or kicked out of the house, but there is as far as I can tell no differentiation there or between religious beliefs that see homosexual behaviour as needing repentance and change on the level of sex outside of marriage (even though implications of what that means can be more drastic than expectations for heterosexuals) and the burn in hell and glad of it variety.

Should parents having concerns about homosexual or bisexual feelings and thoughts because of knowledge of research showing greater difficulties in society or just awareness of these difficulties through media or personal experience be classed as "anti-homosexual beliefs" in the same way as one would class "homosexual behaviour is a sin"?   Should a religious belief that "homosexual behaviour is a sin, but one that God will be the judge of" be weighted as conflict in the same way as a religious belief that "homosexuality is destroying the world and homosexuals will burn for eternity in hell"?  Common sense would be there is a difference, too bad the research can't tell us for sure.

I think differentiating out the level of conflict with parental beliefs would have been extremely helpful, but it might have made the study too bulky.  Getting a basic framework and then exploring the nuances is wise, but it is important to recognize where lack of nuances may impact the applicability of research.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

In general, yes.  But how many will not allow the baptism of children with parents who are involved in a SSM?  How many call those who enter a SSM an apostate and excommunicate them?  (Honest question, if you know.....I'm not aware of any others who hold to all of this). 

In the Catholic church, baptism of children born to gay parents is left up to the local church leaders.  Some don't allow it, some do.  It is an emerging "battleground".   As to the second question, I think most conservative Christian churches excommunicate for homosexual activity. I know the Catholics do for sure.  In fact, they take it to the next level:

Quote

In 2016, Fabian Bruskewitz (formerly Bishop of Lincoln) argued that the acceptance of homosexuality
 in the US had been "devastating" for society, and that Catholics who refused to "capitulate" to the LGBT agenda faced up-coming persecution. He called homosexuality a "perversion that is repulsive to normal human beings" and a type of "degeneration" determined to destroy Christianity.[313] As Bishop (in 1996) he had threatened automatic excommunication to any Catholics who became members of Call to Action - an organization advocates a variety of changes in the Catholic Church including greater understanding around homosexuality

 

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Is Mormonism specifically mentioned in the study regarding the "faiths"?  (another sincere question).  

ETA:

pogi, do you have a link to the study you're referencing?  (You may have already posted it, but I looked back through some of your posts just now and couldn't find it).

Thanks!  

No, Mormonism is not specifically mentioned.  Here is the link, in case you missed it:

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

I sincerely believe that the November policy is over emphasized by opponents.  I feel extremely confident that combating the policy is a less effective approach at reducing suicide rates among LGBT Mormons.  There are MUCH more effective things we can be doing on.  Arguing about the policy is a waste of time.  We could be better addressing areas that we can all agree on.  
 

Edited January 29, 2018 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I'm just saying that there are all different "faiths" and that was a pretty general statement.  We have to look at specific faiths to see what is actually being taught to a youth at risk to determine whether or not it is helping them or doing more harm.

Communication is very important, of course....I agree.

Much shorter way of saying what I did in my last post, lol.

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/27/2018 at 3:17 PM, Calm said:

If there is something a parent could do that could stop a child from killing himself with substance addiction***, why wouldn't a parent do it (outside of something that would harm themselves or others)?

Not much one can do with adult children other than watch them play out the scenario.