An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[Rain]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

This is one of the best posts in this entire thread.  Pogi has laid out some really specific concrete ideas that I also believe will help gay youth in the church.  IT DOES GET BETTER.  Youth do not always see that.  Their focus really lacks a wider view of life.  They think that the situation they find themselves in at the moment (whether it be hostile friends, hostile family, hostile community, hostile religion etc) will last forever.  It doesn't.  The older they get and the more experience they get shows them other paths that might work for them when the current path seems like a dead end.  I also think that youth are much more sensitive to what other people say or think.  As you grow older, you begin to rely on your own self worth and not how others view your self worth.  A It Gets Better Program in the church would not only help church youth, but it would also show a willingness to work with that organization outside the church.

I also think that support groups can be very effective for all church members that are dealing with this issue.  I don't know much about North Star, but I did attend Evergreen when I first came out.  It was extremely helpful.  It certainly could have been run better and received much more church support.  The church wouldn't even provide a priesthood leader to moderate the group.  Most of us felt like orphans in the church, but even that was better than nothing.  At least we were among other orphans.  

Part of the problem, back then at least. is that church leaders would not make any kind of announcement from the pulpit concerning any gay support group.  They could mention the drug abuse program and those dealing with overweight.  But anything about Evergreen was just not appropriate.  There was a stake in Washington at the time that the stake president got behind the Evergreen program.  As a result, they had 10 times the participation that the group in the San Francisco area had.  

I also think that parents, for the most part, are very poorly equipped to deal with this issue.  Having a parent support group would go a long way to having members understand some underlying issue.  It took my family 15 years to finally establish a working relationship with me.  For 15 years, I was not invited to any family events.  They felt that if they invited me to anything including church activities like baptisms and missionary farewells that they were some how encouraging me to be gay.  It was a very difficult 16 years for me.

The good part is, I don't think that any of these ideas goes against church teachings.  

Love the idea of a It Gets Better program. And not just suicide. Or just for LGBT things. For so many things.

I've been hit with major depression twice in my life. Two totally different causes. The second time in my life when I was thinking of suicide I had three thoughts that stopped me. 1. My husband won't be able to handle it. 2. My baby needs me. 3. I didn't think it would ever get better last time. It did get better, so I should hang on.

I've since done the best I could helping people with this idea. I could use the help that something like you describe could provide. 

Two years ago I found myself tumbling into depression again for a 3rd different reason. This time I was able to recognize it before I hit where I was the other 2 times.

It gets better!

Edited January 28, 2018 by Rain

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

That's not a particularly uncommon phenomenon. For example, did you know that there are actually people who think the Church should change its long-held doctrines about marriage and family in order to be and believe like them?

I am not one of them.  Since I have said this repeatedly over and over again, it would be nice if at least once, one of you attackers would acknowledge that fact instead of using the term "you and yours".  There is no you and yours.  I am not part of a mob.  I am not responsible for what others say.  

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not one of them.  Since I have said this repeatedly over and over again, it would be nice if at least once, one of you attackers would acknowledge that fact instead of using the term "you and yours".  There is no you and yours.  I am not part of a mob.  I am not responsible for what others say.  

Umm, point of order: We - the vanishing few - are the defenders of the Church of Jesus Christ in this forum. We leave the attacking to others.

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

Love the idea of a It Gets Better program. And not just suicide. Or just for LGBT things. For so many things.

I've been hit with major depression twice in my life. Two totally different causes. The second time in my life when I was thinking of suicide I had three thoughts that stopped me. 1. My husband won't be able to handle it. 2. My baby needs me. 3. I didn't think it would ever get better last time. It did get better, so I should hang on.

I've since done the best I could helping people with this idea. I could use the help that something like you describe could provide. 

Two years ago I found myself tumbling into depression again for a 3rd different reason. This time I was able to recognize it before I hit where I was the other 2 times.

It gets better!

Thank you for your input.  There would be such a difference if people could not feel like they are all alone.  5 years after I had left the church and the Evergreen program that I was involved in closed down, I got a call from an elderly couple.  Their stake president called them to try and restart the Evergreen program.  They contact me and asked if I would be willing to help start the group up again.  I was glad to help.  They organized a couple of meetings that I attended. But in the end, the group failed.  Church leaders  thought it inappropriate to make any kind of announcement over the pulpit about the meetings.  Members would only know about Evergreen if a bishop or stake president recommended them.  

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Umm, point of order: We - the vanishing few - are the defenders of the Church of Jesus Christ in this forum. We leave the attacking to others.

yeah right.  Do you even read what you write?

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

yeah right.  Do you even read what you write?

Why yes; I do. Thank you for asking.

I sometimes even edit what I write if, on second reading, it looks like it might upset someone. (For which I get maliciously accused of trying to "cover my tracks," which is par for the course around here.)

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

What makes you think that God doesn't tell gays that He loves them all the time as well and expect gays to change.  Perhaps He just doesn't tell them to change the way you want them to change.   

You just said you will not change and there is no need for change. 

Note that I did not try to change or convert you in this thread. You made that conclusion yourself. All I did was tell you that we all have to live the same moral standards. A logical counter agument to that would be that we do not. Instead you changed my topic from we all have to live the same moral standards if we want the same eternal blessings to I am trying to convert tou. 

I think you believe in exaltation because you grew up Mormon. If so then when has Mormonism included homosexual behavior as being perfectly compatible with heterosexual behavior in order to achieve exaltation? I do not understand why you accept a doctrine unique to Mormonism but reluctant to accept its related doctrines. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Darren10

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Love the idea of a It Gets Better program. And not just suicide. Or just for LGBT things. For so many things.

I've been hit with major depression twice in my life. Two totally different causes. The second time in my life when I was thinking of suicide I had three thoughts that stopped me. 1. My husband won't be able to handle it. 2. My baby needs me. 3. I didn't think it would ever get better last time. It did get better, so I should hang on.

I've since done the best I could helping people with this idea. I could use the help that something like you describe could provide. 

Two years ago I found myself tumbling into depression again for a 3rd different reason. This time I was able to recognize it before I hit where I was the other 2 times.

It gets better!

Very similar to my wife’s struggles with depression and suicide. Thank you for sharing. 

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

As someone who apparently doesn’t believe today’s restored Church is the true Church of Christ, it’s only natural and expected that you would think and feel the way you do. But as one who believes the LDS Church is the true Church of Christ, I realize that the teachings and testimonies of the prophets have ALWAYS been rejected and belittled by those who adhere to the wisdom and fashion of the world. The Lord’s true prophets have forever been persecuted, mocked and slain by their unbelieving contemporaries because those who conform to the rudiments of this fallen world will inevitably esteem the teachings of the living prophets to be inflexible, overly strict and unkind. It’s always has been this way and always will.

You trivialize the 2015 Church policy on the children of gay parents when you say it’s merely based on public relations fears. I say this because the.Church leaders realize the adversary of men’s souls was lying in wait to capitalize on this issue in order to create massive firestorms of bitter persecution against the Church for supposedly teaching innocent children to disrespect and turn against their own parents. There are plenty designing people in the world who wouldn’t hesitate for a single moment to implement such a cynical strategy no matter how  destructive to those involved.

Thankfully, now that the policy is in place, the vast majority of gay parents won’t even consider sending their children to the LDS Church because they wouldn’t want to expose their kids to conflicting messages that might very well only serve to hurt and confuse them. Now If the kids turn out to be maladjusted or emotionally injured, the parents of these children will have nobody to blame but themselves. 

Finally, thanks to the blessed immutable mercy and justice of God, when the time is right these children will have the opportunity to accept the gospel message without being negatively affected in the long term even one iota. All the blessings that might have been theirs if circumstances had been otherwise will be restored to these children in full with the cup of God’s love and mercy flowing over.. Because of his infinite wisdom and power, God will always thwart and overthrow the evil designs of the devil, no matter how cunning and clever Satan thinks he is.

 

[USU78]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

You said: "I'm asking what I would do if I knew my child was slowly going under and one means of keeping her on solid ground was to leave the church so as to distance her from its policy on her, what would be my priority?" (emphasis added)

I stand corrected.  But can you perhaps see how the emphasized statement might reasonably be construed as referencing resignation?

I don't understand.  Here you are again seemingly referencing resignation ("leaving the church").  Are you talking about "resigning from the Church" or not?

Well no, it's not.  I don't understand what you mean by "leaving the Church."  To what are you referring here?

I did not intend to "change" the question.  I thought you were referencing resignation of membership.  You denied that (which is fine), but then you proceed to ask the same question using the same terminology ("leaving the Church").  Once you clarify what you mean by that (since it apparently does not mean resigning from the Church), I'd be happy to answer.

So "leaving the Church" = "stepping away from the Church?"  As in reducing or ceasing activity in the Church, but not resigning one's membership?

Thanks,

-Smac

Moreover, a demand that Mom leave the Church "if you really love me" is the demand of a bullying toddler, not to be taken seriously.

[Calm]

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. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Calm

[USU78]

1 minute ago, 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 broken, undesirable, sinful, tainted, or some other unbearable thought because their thoughts and desires because that must be what their parents' beliefs lead them to conclude...and they can't understand there are other ways to look at it.

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 I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, heard it with my own ears, I likewise wouldn't have credited it.

Yet there's much wisdom in what you posted here. Self-infantalization is a real thing.

[Calm]

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.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, heard it with my own ears, I likewise wouldn't have credited it.

Yet there's much wisdom in what you posted here. Self-infantalization is a real thing.

If you mean using suicide to bully, I did state there are those who do use it...I knew someone who arranged 8 suicide attempts in 2 monthsso there would always be someone there to call the police or stop the bleeding from a barely slashed wrist.

That is not the situation Juliann and I are talking about.  We are talking about children who have 'reasoned' out because homosexual behaviour or something else is condemned by the Church as a sin, they cannot be loved by their parents who believe church teachings.  They have no hope that they mean anything more than a burden to anyone.

If putting visible distance between the Church and the family was able to give that hope to your child, without any requirement to purge the Gospel from your inner life and without damaging other children who could be at a sensitive stage where they need the Church's support system as well as the opportunity to build and experience their own faith, would there be a reason why you wouldn't take time off from the Church to help your child stick around long enough to get and have hope enough to try and get help?

[USU78]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you mean using suicide to bully, I did state there are those who do use it...I knew someone who arranged 8 suicide attempts in 2 monthsso there would always be someone there to call the police or stop the bleeding from a barely slashed wrist.

That is not the situation Juliann and I are talking about.  We are talking about children who have 'reasoned' out because homosexual behaviour or something else is condemned by the Church as a sin, they cannot be loved by their parents who believe church teachings.  They have no hope that they mean anything more than a burden to anyone.

If putting visible distance between the Church and the family was able to give that hope to your child, without any requirement to purge the Gospel from your inner life and without damaging other children who could be at a sensitive stage where they need the Church's support system as well as the opportunity to build and experience their own faith, would there be a reason why you wouldn't take time off from the Church to help your child stick around long enough to get and have hope enough to try and get help?

We don't have to agree on this to be friends. I appreciate your point of view and have, of course, considered it. I come down on the "don't follow crazy" side. Mental illness makes bad policy decisions. "If you love me, you'll protest X, Y, or Z Church doctrine or policy" will always find a stone wall in 78land.

Your mileage necessarily may differ.

[kllindley]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

What makes you think that God doesn't tell gays that He loves them all the time as well and expect gays to change.  Perhaps He just doesn't tell them to change the way you want them to change.   

I believe that he does tell them that. I truly believe that he leads each of us on our own personal journey.

At the same time, I do believe that ultimately, Heavenly Father will eventually invite all of His children to participate into full measure of exaltation and I believe that will include male-female unions. What does that mean for me? 

I've got to accept and embrace everyone no matter where they are on their journey. I don't have to accept (as in personally believe) any specific claim of divine guidance or revealed truth that doesn't fit for me. But I sure don't have any room to tell anyone else about their journey. I do have to believe and trust that God is able to do His own work. 

I think I can share my belief and trust in God with others. At times, I have felt prompted to be a little more specific. But I try to always make the effort to be clear that I am representing my own personal, fallible beliefs. 

Maybe someone like Darren is just missing the "I believe" disclaimer, assuming that because of the nature of the forum that is understood. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Moreover, a demand that Mom leave the Church "if you really love me" is the demand of a bullying toddler, not to be taken seriously.

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.

I'm not being antagonistic here.  I just don't understand what is being said.  

It seems like this interchange began when I said this:

Quote

I have six children.  I love them all dearly.  I hope they remain active in the Church, but I will do all I can to love them if they choose another path.

That said, I simply cannot fathom a situation in which resigning from the Church is something God would want us to do.  I also cannot articulate any situation in which I, as a parent and a Latter-day Saint, would find it appropriate to counsel my son or daughter to resign.

I am not sure I am reading this correctly.  It sounds like you are theorizing about a parent, a member of the Church who has a child so profoundly mentally ill that the only way to keep that child from committing suicide is for the parent to resign from the Church.  Is that correct?

That seems . . . farfetched.

And how far should a parent go in order to placate a person with a mental illness?  What does "willing to put aside everything else for them" mean?  Should the parent be willing to quit a job?  Get a divorce?

This is a sensitive topic.  And we are only speaking in the abstract.  So feel free to disregard my remarks, or just consider them food for thought.  I do not want to antagonize.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If you mean using suicide to bully, I did state there are those who do use it...I knew someone who arranged 8 suicide attempts in 2 months so there would always be someone there to call the police or stop the bleeding from a barely slashed wrist.

That is not the situation Juliann and I are talking about.  We are talking about children who have 'reasoned' out because homosexual behaviour or something else is condemned by the Church as a sin, they cannot be loved by their parents who believe church teachings.  They have no hope that they mean anything more than a burden to anyone.

If putting visible distance between the Church and the family was able to give that hope to your child, without any requirement to purge the Gospel from your inner life and without damaging other children who could be at a sensitive stage where they need the Church's support system as well as the opportunity to build and experience their own faith, would there be a reason why you wouldn't take time off from the Church to help your child stick around long enough to get and have hope enough to try and get help?

"Take time off from the Church?"  Under threat of suicide from a profoundly mentally ill person?

I'll have to think about that.

You speak of "children who have 'reasoned' out because homosexual behaviour or something else is condemned by the Church as a sin, they cannot be loved by their parents who believe church teachings."  And you speak of, essentially, giving in to blackmail in order to placate such a line of reasoning.  Because let's be clear, "Do ________ or else I will kill myself" is blackmail.  Extortion.  Coercion.  You are not speaking of "bullying."  You are speaking of something far, far worse.

I have a hard time conceptualizing a situation in which giving in to such a disturbing threat from a mentally ill person would be appropriate.  Wouldn't giving into such demands just incentivize the mentally ill person to do it again?  And again?

Moreover, just how far would such demands go before you say "No, I cannot do that"?  What is the limiting principle here?  

"Mom, I'll kill myself unless you resign from the Church and publicly disavow its teachings."

"Dad, I'll kill myself unless you quit your job, sell the house, and move the family to Honduras."

"Dad, I'll kill myself unless you divorce Mom."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

20 hours ago, ALarson said:

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

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

I agree. And since only those who enter the temple and receive covenants will be exalted, so be it. The marriages that aren't allowed would not be exalted. Such as the SSM's. Easy as that. The church said to love the "so called" sinner, not the sin. Then they need to welcome anyone to attend without condemning their children or closing their doors to possible baptisms of a gay families' children. I think this may just take care of the situation. The non allowance of a temple marriage will be a loud enough message that the church doesn't condone it, but atleast they will love he sinner. Not that I'm saying it's a sin, but they think it is. 

[kllindley]

21 hours ago, ALarson said:

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

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

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

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

Some quotes from the article:

 

I read a very insightful analysis from a dear friend that really captures my thoughts and reaction to the documentary and the related effort. I think it is very relevant to this letter as well.     Shared here with his permission. 

Quote

Activists lobby against certain churches or religions trying to publicly shame them into changing what they teach on homosexuality. But I've never seen any activists understand the difference between deeply held theology or doctrine and much more surface policies.

A faith's doctrine that has held for centuries that sex is blessed by God only within a marriage between husband and wife, and is forbidden in all other circumstances, cannot be altered by a simple policy vote. But activists have no understanding or no respect for that so they pressure and publicly shame religious leaders as if the religious leaders could say, “Nevermind, God has changed his mind on morality after thousands of years and sex outside of heterosexual marriage is okay now.” or “Oops, we misinterpreted scripture for thousands of years, but now we understand that that's not what God meant to say.”

Yes, I'm aware that some liberal churches or faiths have actually done just that. But not all organized religions are structured to allow that kind of drastic change to their core teachings.

What I would say to these activists (like the producers of the Believer documentary at the Sundance festival) is, “Look, certain doctrine are unchangeable. The church is never going to stop teasing that sex outside of opposite-sex marriage is sinful. So don't even go there. You're wasting whatever capital you have. But if you accept that really, everything else may be susceptible to positive influence. What do you suggest that the church do differently or better to be welcoming and affirming of gays.”

Now you have something you can work with. But if the activists’s aim is to get the church to change its doctrine, all you'll do is create division and make things worse. And that, as far as I can tell, is what the Believer documentary does.

                                                                                                                                                               -Rich Wyler              

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How dare you nit-pick somebody’s grammar! That’s my thing. 

I would respond, but, due to that fit of plainly mean-spirited rage and hatred, I have been banned from the thread.  I'm sure that you, of all people, understand why the Mods couldn't continue to allow the poor, defenseless little Snowflakes on the Board to be subjected to such vitriol.  

 

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I agree with about the policy.  I think the Church should just treat gay married couples the same as gay couples that are not married.   Though the government may recognize these marriages, the Church does not have to.   Gay couples can attend.  As to membership,  if they are violating the law of chastity, they should be treated the same as two heterosexual couples that are not married but violating the law of chastity.   I really is simple.  Us the same standards that existed before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue.  Justice Kennedy does not get to decide the path the Church goes.

It is that simple! A married gay couple are not violating the law of chastity, should be allowed to attend and get baptised. Nothing in there that says they can be exalted, just salvation. 

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Do you have a view on why the Church will baptise the children of heterosexual parents who aren’t members, who don’t live the standards of the Church, aren’t required to be married, may be alcohol consumers, smokers, drug users etc even though the Church will poison their mind against their parents lifestyle choices?

And I'll add more...murderers, sex abusers etc....

[Traela]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It is that simple! A married gay couple are not violating the law of chastity, should be allowed to attend and get baptised. Nothing in there that says they can be exalted, just salvation. 

 

Sex outside a heterosexual marriage (you know, the kind that can lead to exaltation) is against the law of chastity.  

 

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

You just said you will not change and there is no need for change. 

Note that I did not try to change or convert you in this thread. You made that conclusion yourself. All I did was tell you that we all have to live the same moral standards. A logical counter agument to that would be that we do not. Instead you changed my topic from we all have to live the same moral standards if we want the same eternal blessings to I am trying to convert tou. 

I think you believe in exaltation because you grew up Mormon. If so then when has Mormonism included homosexual behavior as being perfectly compatible with heterosexual behavior in order to achieve exaltation? I do not understand why you accept a doctrine unique to Mormonism but reluctant to accept its related doctrines. 

Did you miss this part of my post?  " Perhaps He just doesn't tell them to change the way you want them to change."  You seem to think that everyone will be exactly the same in the Celestial Kingdom.  That is where we differ in belief.  There is a lot about Mormonism I still believe.  But  I don't believe all of it. I believe what the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price has to say about homosexuality.  Just like Mormonism, I don't believe everything that is written in the Bible came from God.  I don't believe prophets are fallible.  I think their guesses about how to treat gays are wrong.  And yes, I believe they are guessing.  

I also have no problem with the church teaching something that is counter to what the Spirit confirms to me.  I am not in charge of the church and it appears that God lets leaders stumble around with incorrect doctrine for quite some time.  That concept is not against church beliefs.  It shows that God works with the best of what he has to work with.  But they are still human just doing the best they can.

 Just try not to take this personal that my beliefs differ from yours.  It is not meant as an attack on Mormon beliefs.  It is meant as a difference of opinion.