An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[USU78]

51 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

For some it is same difference...when you shun parents....you shun them all.

Ridiculous hyperbole.

And with no comedic overtones/subtext at all.  That makes it earnestly ridiculous hyperbole.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Ridiculous hyperbole.

Not even close.  If your children disavowed your marriage, I would imagine you'd take that personal.  I think it would be a very difficult thing to take place without there being some hurt feelings and a cause of putting distance between parents and children.  It's very difficult at times to separate who a person is from their behavior. 

I do believe there's a difference.....but certainly not enough to claim "ridiculous hyperbole". 

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Ridiculous hyperbole.

And with no comedic overtones/subtext at all.  That makes it earnestly ridiculous hyperbole.

Having already read and understood Bluebell/Calm's posts to me...I understand.

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Having already read and understood Bluebell/Calm's posts to me...I understand.

Jeanne, don’t let him accuse you of that!  What you posted is how many thought when they first heard the policy.  No ridulous hyperbole from you 

But, it’s good you recognized the difference too!

Edited January 29, 2018 by JulieM

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

For some it is same difference...when you shun parents....you shun them all.

I disavow the pot smoking my son does, yet show love to him and his smoking friends.  He knows that my feelings about weed don't change my feelings for him and his friends.  

[USU78]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Having already read and understood Bluebell/Calm's posts to me...I understand.

Sorry. I posted immediately upon reading your post and before I saw the follow-up. Please to disregard.

[Brian 2.0]

8 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I disavow the pot smoking my son does, yet show love to him and his smoking friends.  He knows that my feelings about weed don't change my feelings for him and his friends.  

I think it might just be a tad different if 1) The weed was a sentient being, and 2) Your son said, "This weed here is my partner for the rest of my life on Earth. We are one. I choose to experience life, and make life decisions alongside this weed as me and my weed here discuss together what we want OUR life to be. I will support and defend this weed to my dying day, and this weed will support and defend me."

I don't think it would be a stretch to think your son might react just a little differently to your disavowing of his relationship to weed. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Brian 2.0

[Maestrophil]

4 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

I think it might just be a tad different if 1) The weed was a sentient being, and 2) Your son said, "This weed here is my partner for the rest of my life on Earth. We are one. I choose to experience life, and make life decision alongside this weed as me and my weed here discuss together what we want OUR life to be. I will support and defend this weed to my dying day, and this weed will support and defend me."

I don't think it would be a stretch to think your son might react just a little differently to your disavowing of his relationship to weed. 

Brian - much to my chagrin - my son DOES say this about his weed...  But it is not a sentient being.  But in the case of SSM, the sentient being is not being disavowed either, it is the practice.  Likewise, my son knows I disapprove of his non-married relationships with his girlfriend which are intimate, yet he and his girlfriend are welcome to our home, and I treat them both with love.  They know how I feel about the relationship, and they don't push for my approval.  I know how they feel about each other, so I love them and allow them their agency.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Maestrophil
Edited to say disapprove = disavow in this post

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not even close.  If your children disavowed your marriage, I would imagine you'd take that personal.  

A possible analogy would be parents getting a divorce and one remarrying where children refused to recognize the new spouse as their parent's spouse, perhaps the family was Catholic though the divorced parent saw themselves as changing faiths at least on marriage.

A child might then refuse to invite the new spouse to family gatherings or refuse to talk to them when there  or talk to them in abusive ways OR they could just treat them lovingly and kindly but still believe the marriage was a fiction even if the relationship itself of course existed and they were supportive of the couple as individuals and as part of their family, but not as a couple.

I would imagine the former case would cause much more turmoil and pain than the latter, but I still would think it would hurt both of the couple and especially the new partner that they weren't accepted in the way they saw themselves and believed they had a right to be seen based on their own beliefs.

[Brian 2.0]

13 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Brian - much to my chagrin - my son DOES say this about his weed...  But it is not a sentient being.  But in the case of SSM, the sentient being is not being disavowed either, it is the practice.  Likewise, my son knows I disapprove of his non-married relationships with his girlfriend which are intimate, yet he and his girlfriend are welcome to our home, and I treat them both with love.  They know how I feel about the relationship, and they don't push for my approval.  I know how they feel about each other, so I love them and allow them their agency.

This comes down to how someone (or the church) defines "disavow"

Just in looking on Websters I see two:
- To deny responsibility for
- To refuse to acknowledge or accept

The problem I'm speaking of would come in the acknowledgement. If a child must disavow by saying  "I refuse to acknowledge my parents marriage as a marriage, because even though it may legally be one, it's not a true marriage because that can only happen between and man and a woman" then I think we start getting into some tougher ground with hurt feelings easily happening.

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

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

Yes, the SLTrib comments pages are always worth reading, especially if you enjoy howling mobs. Or if you want to know the views of those who are implacably opposed to Jesus Christ and His Church.

Quote

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

Certainly, what s/he writes is obviously what "gay" anti-Mormons want him/her to write.

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. (From the Trib.)

Here's what I "know about the high rate of suicide among LDS gay youth:" I know that there are a lot of bogus statistics being thrown around. But if anyone dares to question those statistics, the questioner is subjected to a barrage of abuse for being so uncaring and insensitive as to care about mere "numbers." And this from the very same people who try to make those numbers into an argument.

This behaviour, BTW, is characteristic of a social phenomenon known as a "moral panic."

If there are any actual numbers, from a non-partisan source, "about the high rate of suicide among LDS gay youth," then I haven't seen them.

Quote

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). (From the Trib.)

Since you clearly endorse this propaganda, ALarson, I ask if you can support it.

Yes, this is a CFR.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by kiwi57

[california boy]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

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:

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:

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. 

 

Thanks for posting this study.  I have taken a brief look, but have not studied it in depth.  One of the first things that I look at in any study is how the date was collected.  This study appears to be self selected, probably the worse reliable way to collect unbiased data and usually is enough to draw any serious conclusions from a study.  

Quote

 Links to the survey were made available through online and in-print outlets (e.g. Oasis Magazine, Out in America, OutProud), and websites that cater to young LGBT persons. Once the website for the survey was accessed by participants, an introductory letter explained the study goals and the OutProud privacy policy; no identifying information was collected from participants. 

I think another factor is that the participants for the survey came from Oasis Magazine, Out in America, OutProud.  

Oasis magazine is a large format print publication featuring upscale homes for sale in the Charleston SC area.  

Out in America seems to be a documentary on LGBT in America.

OutProud is a dating service for gays

Not sure if any of these sites where the data was gathered fits teens struggling with their identity.  Do you?  

There is also no indication on how long somone has stepped away from his religion and when the suicide happened.  I would not be surprised if stepping away from one's religion is not more a sign of depression rather than faith based issues.  I am. just saying that I have a lot of questions on what the data is drawing its conclusions.  As this study mentions, it seems to be counter to intuition about this issue.  We do know that teens who feel shamed and rejected for their homosexuality are at a higher risk for suicide.  It is hard to rationalize that a religion that adds to that shame and rejections would be helpful to that depressed teen. 

I think more data is needed, especially information about those that have committed suicide to see if there are common threads that may have lead to that decision.  From what I have read, there has been a spike in suicides in Utah since the October policy announcement.  That is not necessarily proof that the policy caused that spike, but it certainly would be something that should be investigated by this recently formed task force.  I certainly wouldn't be trumpeting this study as conclusive proof that a religion that has a strong stance against gay marriage and living as an openly gay person is helpful to an at risk teen.  This survey you quoted has far too many questions about the data and the conclusions made from the data in my opinion.

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think you actually answered your own question. 

Also, you used the wrong word.  You absolutely do not really know that a heterosexual relationship will be any more "valid" than a homosexual relationship after this life.  You can relate what the leaders have taught so far on this or what you believe.  But none of us really know and won't know until we experience it.

I know 100% that heterosexual marriages are absolutely valid in heaven and for exaltation. I am also 100% cwrtsin that homosexual relations are always condembed as immortal. This has been true from ancient prophets and continue today wirh living prophets. 

As I noted, I make an effort to base my reasoning on what we do know about exaltation. If something has always been condemned as immoral, I have no doubt it will not be just as valid as as something which has always been upheld as morally good when it comes to exaltation. Also, heterosexual marriage us absolutely required for exaltation. 

I hope that helps. 

[Darren10]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

One of the first things that I look at in any study is how the date was collected.

That's probably usually done by looking at their calendars. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Darren10

[Brian 2.0]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I know 100% that heterosexual marriages are absolutely valid in heaven and for exaltation. I am also 100% cwrtsin that homosexual relations are always condembed as immortal. This has been true from ancient prophets and continue today wirh living prophets. 

As I noted, I make an effort to base my reasoning on what we do know about exaltation. If something has always been condemned as immoral, I have no doubt it will not be just as valid as as something which has always been upheld as morally good when it comes to exaltation. Also, heterosexual marriage us absolutely required for exaltation. 

I hope that helps. 

You and ALarson are using different definitions of the work "know" here. 

... or different definitions of "100%" I guess

[ALarson]

52 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, the SLTrib comments pages are always worth reading, especially if you enjoy howling mobs. Or if you want to know the views of those who are implacably opposed to Jesus Christ and His Church.

Certainly, what s/he writes is obviously what "gay" anti-Mormons want him/her to write.

Here's what I "know about the high rate of suicide among LDS gay youth:" I know that there are a lot of bogus statistics being thrown around. But if anyone dares to question those statistics, the questioner is subjected to a barrage of abuse for being so uncaring and insensitive as to care about mere "numbers." And this from the very same people who try to make those numbers into an argument.

This behaviour, BTW, is characteristic of a social phenomenon known as a "moral panic."

If there are any actual numbers, from a non-partisan source, "about the high rate of suicide among LDS gay youth," then I haven't seen them.

Since you clearly endorse this propaganda, ALarson, I ask if you can support it.

Those last two quotes that you represented as my words are not mine (they were quotes written by someone else).  Can you please fix that or clarify for anyone reading your post?

 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I know 100% that heterosexual marriages are absolutely valid in heaven and for exaltation. I am also 100% cwrtsin that homosexual relations are always condembed as immortal. This has been true from ancient prophets and continue today wirh living prophets. 

You may believe these things and I respect that.  But you cannot "know" what will take place after we die.  I have faith in a life after death (and there is evidence of that being true), but it's still just a hope or belief.  Even from there, it's just belief and faith regarding what may or what will actually transpire. 

I actually believe that no one will be forced to be with another (as in living polygamy for one example) and that no one we love will be kept from being with us (if they love us too and want to be with us). 

I have hope this is true....but even I can't or don't "know" how things will be.  

Many misuse the word "know" when it's really just a "belief" or "having faith in" or "hope".

Edited January 30, 2018 by ALarson

[california boy]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

 

I wanted to address this part of your post separately.  I think it deserves a separate response.  Again, I don't think you can make the blanket statement "as we know that leaving a faith increases risk of suicide" quite yet.  

Here is what i can tell you.  I did have to get over the shame of being gay.  That took a long time but it happened within the confines of the church.  Do I think the church helped with that?  Possibly.  The church did teach me to have a more personal relationship with Christ and to never rely on the opinions or beliefs of others, including church leadership.  It does get better.  Maybe if gay youth could see more successful gay couples succeed in the church, that would help.  But we all know that is not going to happen.  Unfortunately not all gay youth see successful gays outside the church either.  So they feel like that is not a possibility.  Maybe I should start holding firesides about successfully navigating through life as a gay member.  Probably the first thing I would tell those youth is to start making friends with those gays that have found happiness and joy in this life.  It is possible for them as well.  If there is hope for happiness, there is less thinking that suicide is the only option. 

Yeah, I am probably going to get clobbered for this post.  But you asked.

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for posting this study.  I have taken a brief look, but have not studied it in depth.  One of the first things that I look at in any study is how the date was collected.  This study appears to be self selected, probably the worse reliable way to collect unbiased data and usually is enough to draw any serious conclusions from a study.  

I think another factor is that the participants for the survey came from Oasis Magazine, Out in America, OutProud.  

Oasis magazine is a large format print publication featuring upscale homes for sale in the Charleston SC area.  

Out in America seems to be a documentary on LGBT in America.

OutProud is a dating service for gays

Not sure if any of these sites where the data was gathered fits teens struggling with their identity.  Do you?  

There is also no indication on how long somone has stepped away from his religion and when the suicide happened.  I would not be surprised if stepping away from one's religion is not more a sign of depression rather than faith based issues.  I am. just saying that I have a lot of questions on what the data is drawing its conclusions.  As this study mentions, it seems to be counter to intuition about this issue.  We do know that teens who feel shamed and rejected for their homosexuality are at a higher risk for suicide.  It is hard to rationalize that a religion that adds to that shame and rejections would be helpful to that depressed teen. 

I think more data is needed, especially information about those that have committed suicide to see if there are common threads that may have lead to that decision.  From what I have read, there has been a spike in suicides in Utah since the October policy announcement.  That is not necessarily proof that the policy caused that spike, but it certainly would be something that should be investigated by this recently formed task force.  I certainly wouldn't be trumpeting this study as conclusive proof that a religion that has a strong stance against gay marriage and living as an openly gay person is helpful to an at risk teen.  This survey you quoted has far too many questions about the data and the conclusions made from the data in my opinion.

There are certainly limitations with any study.  The survey covered more then Oasis MAgazine, Out in America, and OutProud.  Those were just 3 examples specifically mentioned.  It specifically states:

Quote

Links to the survey were made available through online and in-print outlets (e.g. Oasis Magazine, Out in America, OutProud), and websites that cater to young LGBT persons.

Quote

With the inclusion of more than 260 variables collected from 5,281 U.S. resident respondents, the OutProud survey represents the only known national sample with a large enough pool to analyze religious and sexual orientation identity conflict. The only requirements for participation were identifying as 25 years of age or younger and willingness to answer questions about sexual minority experiences. For the purpose of this secondary analysis, the sample was restricted to emerging adults, age 18 to 24 years (a subsample of 2,949 respondents).

You are right, I wouldn't trumpet this study as "conclusive proof that a religion that has a strong stance against gay marriage and living as an openly gay person is helpful to an at risk teen".  That is not what the study found at all.  It doesn't say that religion is "helpful" in terms of self-acceptance, etc.  In fact, it found that leaving religion reduced internalized homophobia but that it also conversely increased suicidal risks.  

 

 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/27/2018 at 1:56 PM, smac97 said:

.............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.................................

So, Spencer, just what are the relative merits?  Shouldn't that discussion proceed even now?  For example, are the merits solely and only revelatory?  Or are there scientific and practical aspects to be considered?  In the case of granting of priesthood to men of Black African ancestry, ordination came via revelation, but only after a great deal of practical consideration and soul searching, i.e., the Brazil thing was coming to the fore on the heels of decades of intellectual inquiry.

Thus, is there a place to consider whether sin can be committed without intent?  If gender preference is not actually a matter of free choice so much as it is genetic or a result of development in utero, then where is the "sin."  Jesus was asked the same question about the blind man:  Did he or his parents sin that he was born blind?  Of course not.  Those with same-gender attraction may not like to be defined as congenital defects, but what if in fact that is what science shows?  Isn't that where the discussion should be?

Edited January 30, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Danzo]

On 1/28/2018 at 4:27 AM, Calm said:

I have no clue what you are talking about.

But if you ever had a 12 year old hiding in a corner curled into a fetal position whimpering "I want to die, I want to die", I doubt you would be all that worried about getting bullied.

 

On 1/28/2018 at 4:18 AM, Calm said:

Or it is of a panicked, irrational, fearing life greater than she fears death child, incapable of controlling her thoughts due to biochemical imbalances who fears to be left alone and lost with no one because they believe their parents see them as disappointing, broken, undesirable, sinful, tainted, disgusting, a burden, or some other unbearable thought because their thoughts and desires because that must be what the judgment their parents' beliefs lead to as far as they can see...and they can't understand there are other ways to look at it because their ability to reason has been compromised.

Reassuring them that they are safe, they will not be left alone ever may require showing them that you are willing to put aside everything else for them, including the Church, until they are in a stable and mature enough place they can come to recognize it doesn't have to be a choice of one or the other.

Children who see suicide as a viable escape from the trap they are in are not attempting to bully or manipulate.  There are those who threaten suicide with no true ideation about doing it that might be doing so, but that is not the situation we are discussing. 

If you find someone in that position, Call 911.  The Child needs medical help.  Changing religions will not help them. Discussing sin and punishment will not help them.

I say this as a former EMT.  

Call 911.

 

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

From Elder Oaks, about four months ago (emphases added):

I think the notion that "this proclamation will {} change" is an exercise in wishful thinking.  I know folks like to point to the cessation of polygamy and the Priesthood Ban as precedents for the Church "changing" doctrine.  But the Church did not "change" its doctrine about polygamy, just the practice of it.  The Church has not disavowed polygamy any more than it has disavowed animal sacrifice under the Law of Moses.

The Priesthood Ban isn't a precedent, either.  If the ban lacked revelatory provenance, then it was never a revealed "doctrine" to begin with.  And if it did have revelatory provenance, then its end is akin to the non-observance of animal sacrifice or polygamy.  More information on this topic is available from FAIR.  For me, I lean toward the first option, although I remain open to both possibilities.  

So neither of these works as precedent.  At all, really.  If LDS doctrinal history any indication, then I would say chances are essentially nonexistent that we will see a change in the future.  I think your contrary prediction requires us to utterly ignore the Proclamation (promulgated through revelation), the September 2015 policy changes (also promulgated through revelation), and the unified and unequivocal statements from the General Authorities affirming and reiterating the principles to these issues, such as Elder Oaks' statement above, and also these remarks by Elder Christofferson:

This seems like rather clear guidance.

I remember reading this Slate article, published in November 2014:

As we all know, a fair number of developments on this issue have occurred since this article came out, precisely none of which has gone the way Mr. Saletan predicted.  The Proclamation has been extensively and repeatedly emphasized and re-affirmed.  The September 2015 policy changes came out.  And despite a tremendous full-court press against the Church about them for the more than two years, they remain in place.  Mr. Saletan's predictions, pretty much identical to yours, do not appear to be valid.

The Law of Chastity has a long and consistent doctrinal lineage and basis.  The Proclamation and the September 2015 policy changes were promulgated through revelation.  The General Authorities have been uniformly clear as to the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage and the Law of Chastity, and have given no hint at all to a change in the doctrines of the Church regarding these matters.  So suggestions like "chances are good that we will see a change {regarding the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage} in the future" seem very unrealistic.

Thanks,

-Smac

This has been discussed before in this forum.  It seems to me that the proclamation was elevated to "revelation" long after the fact.  Almost like a doubling down like was done with the November policy.  It also turned into a revelation after the fact.  I believe in an attempt to stem the rise of opposition.  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

I don't see it as an impasse.  I think from what you described, you are doing a fine job navigating the two.  There are a few from the LGBT community that will not be satisfied with anything less than total affirmation/endorsement.  Honestly, despite these individuals being especially vocal, I believe they are in the minority.   

Keep working on showing love on an individual level.  Be careful in your conversations that you don't refer to gays in a derogatory way.  Accept that even though you have a strong testimony about the eternal nature of family, not everyone shares that view.  Don't feel pressure to "correct" them.    Don't be afraid to tell people (including youth) that you love them regardless of the choices they make.  By living your life according to what you believe and answering honestly about those beliefs when asked, you are also holding fast to your testimony.  

I think that's all that can be asked of anyone.  

(As an example, switching positions: I know many people who don't believe that my path in life (LGBT fully in the Church) is wise or healthy.  Of these some still show great love and acceptance by offering encouraging comments about my marriage and decisions.  Even though they may think it, they don't tell me that I am delusional and my marriage is a sham.  They don't state publicly that Mixed-Orientation Marriages are dishonest and destined for failure.  I can feel loved, respected, and accepted by people who absolutely believe I am wrong in believing in the Church. 

Others feel a need to try to convince me constantly that I am wrong, that I'm living a lie.  They claim to be motivated by concern for me when they tell me that I will never truly be happy until I embrace my sexuality and leave my family.  They try to convince me that I have to change because of the pain I am causing others in my life, like my wife.  They don't hesitate to publicly denounce my faith and MOMs.  Despite the fact that I believe most of them are sincere, I simply don't feel loved or accepted by them.)

Excellent post.  I think you can really give a lot of insight on how you feel when others degrade your marriage or start labeling your marriage as a sham.  I have seen you really bristle at this kind of comment.  And rightly so.  Yet some of those same people who gave you rep points for your post have no problem labeling gay marriages as a sham.  Would they not bristle as well?  By you letting your feelings known, perhaps that will help them see how others would react similarly when their relationships are devalued and trivialized.

Personally, I feel this thread has really been a much more positive dialogue for the most part regarding this issue.  There have been some thoughtful posts that are more in the middle rather than the extreme.  I think that kind of dialogue is what is required if there is ever going to be an understanding of different perspectives.  

 

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

This has been discussed before in this forum.  It seems to me that the proclamation was elevated to "revelation" long after the fact.  Almost like a doubling down like was done with the November policy.  It also turned into a revelation after the fact.  I believe in an attempt to stem the rise of opposition.  

Do you believe that when the apostles claim it was revelation that they are lying?

Sincere question, I don’t mean for it to sound like a gotcha. I’m just trying to understand how you reconcile a leader who says something was a revelation only to prevent opposition after the fact, with your views on their personal integrity.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

If you find someone in that position, Call 911.  The Child needs medical help.  Changing religions will not help them. Discussing sin and punishment will not help them.

I say this as a former EMT.  

Call 911.

 

Yes.  Totally agree.  

If it does happen though, you just don't keep going along as you always have, but look at what triggered that kind of episode and see how to protect your child from getting hit with it again until they are emotionally stronger and can handle it.

It would be during the hopefully stabilizing process (after you have learned your child has a huge problem) where you need to help them construct a safe world to be in that you have to explore not only what kind of changes need to happen in their life, but what changes need to happen in the family environment, and as caregivers/parents.  You can't keep a kid hospitalized all the time.  And it can take time to find the right medical treatment (in our case a decade and a half for the depression).  You want to keep things 'normal' where possible, but be brave enough to push new ways where the old ways don't work.  If ever there is a time you feel like you are seeing through a glass darkly, let me tell younhaving your child in deep depression and nothing working is it.  I am so grateful that she never actually went suicidal so we had time to learn without constant panic.  I don't think I would have had the strength not to lose it myself if she had been much worse.

Though hopefully most parents get the chance to recognize the signs of such levels of emotional disturbance before it gets that bad and learn to make the changes first.  In my daughter's case we knew exactly what caused it (diabetes on top of her natural anxieties) and having strangers around and getting poked and prodded was part of it, it was an overnight shock and drop for her with suddenly facing she was going to be getting burning shots of insulin for the rest of eternity in her view (thankfully the slow drip of the pump she doesn't feel) and having to prick her finger for blood multiple times every day when she had an extreme distaste for needles plus the threat of hospitalization if she fought care, yeah, we kept a very close eye on her for those weeks and months that followed.  And we all took turns adapting.

After a couple of months, she decided that she needed to kick her dad off her diabetes care team as it was becoming an obsessive depression for him where he was trying to "fix" it every minute he was not at work.  We went to a very limited home schooling routine as well when she couldn't get past having an emotional meltdown half of her days in going to school (had to pry her fingers off the railing some days even though she would calm down at school...or rather go into numb withdrawal) and was sick the other half even though I am a rotten home schooler for my own kids though apparently other kids really liked me as a tutor.  Eventually the same thing happened with Church.  Went the therapy route, drug route, nothing worked, so we just gave her space to be and after a few years she got past denial of her diabetes and got that under control and a few more years decided on therapy and then medication.  3 years of that with her going deeper into depression, she pushed for something new.  ECT was the next treatment and so far very successful...finally.

All this to say with a child (and a dependent adult), you have to accept that things are not going to be ideal and instead become very pragmatic, but always keep trying new things even if at times that "new thing" is doing nothing.

And learn that going to the hospital and calling 911 is not failing as parents, but being wise and loving.