Is Latter-day Saint Theology Responsible for Lgbt+ Suicides?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This premise belongs in another realm. The gay person is gay from birth, IMO. They didn't choose to desire the same sex, it just is.

That premise has been largely discredited. It is not believed to be genetic. If it were identical twins would always have the same sexuality and that is not the case. The current most promising field explored to find a cause is epigenetics. It is posited that epigenetic divergence during life happens due to environmental factors and experiences and very subtle choices. Note these environmental factors ARE NOT what people used to believe caused it and epigenetic "choice" is generally not made on a conscious level so the person may little or no choice (because it was already made) but they are also not born with it.

Both sides generally dislike this theory because it undercuts the usual rhetorical sloganing that was used by both sides. You cannot say it is a conscious choice and you cannot say someone is born that way.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

Sexual behavior is always learned behavior, in the first place.

So if a teenage boy and girl were marooned on a desert island and neither had been taught anything about sex you would hold they would be unlikely to be able to reproduce? I have my doubts. While some is learned much of it is instinctual.

[liberal81]

I really doubt that LDS Doctrine or Theology is "responsible" for anything.  It is the interpretation and accuracy of that interpretation that may have some importance. Perhaps there should be a bit more information (Doctrine and Theology) presented in Church meetings about Suicide. It is apparent the youngsters who commit suicide have little understanding of it. They are just trying to get rid of the "pain" of an intolerable situation.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, liberal81 said:

I really doubt that LDS Doctrine or Theology is "responsible" for anything.  It is the interpretation and accuracy of that interpretation that may have some importance. Perhaps there should be a bit more information (Doctrine and Theology) presented in Church meetings about Suicide. It is apparent the youngsters who commit suicide have little understanding of it. They are just trying to get rid of the "pain" of an intolerable situation.

What doctrine of suicide would stop it?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That premise has been largely discredited. It is not believed to be genetic. If it were identical twins would always have the same sexuality and that is not the case. The current most promising field explored to find a cause is epigenetics. It is posited that epigenetic divergence during life happens due to environmental factors and experiences and very subtle choices. Note these environmental factors ARE NOT what people used to believe caused it and epigenetic "choice" is generally not made on a conscious level so the person may little or no choice (because it was already made) but they are also not born with it.

Both sides generally dislike this theory because it undercuts the usual rhetorical sloganing that was used by both sides. You cannot say it is a conscious choice and you cannot say someone is born that way.

Where can one read more about this?

[sweetpotatoh]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Threads about suicide make me want to commit suicide.

LOL

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Where can one read more about this?

Here is a good summary of epigemetics in general. Most of the good articles on homosexuality that are not agenda driven and avoid being too pop sciencey are behind paywalls.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051026090636.htm

Note that most of what we have is pretty preliminary but it has been generally acknowledged that genetics has an influence but there is more to it. This does mean there could be a “treatment” for homosexuality by influencing or turning on or off those markers. Less controversially it could end in treatments for things like OCD, psychopathy, ADHD, and you could even tweak away predispositions to disease that came from random environmental factors like childhood diet or mom’s diet in uterus, or being raised in a home with lead paint or inhaling too much pollution or asbestos or even remove markers from smokin tobacco or alcoholism. This may be the answer to President Packer’s prayer for a scientific cure for addiction. It may even correct for the epigenetic effects of not getting enough affection as an infant, toddler, or child to some degree.

It is ethically dangerous ground but the benefits might make it worth it. It is still early though and we would need a good map before we can use it well. We already have basic tools that can alter epigenetic information.

Edited May 12, 2020 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Here is a good summary of epigemetics in general. Most of the good articles on homosexuality that are not agenda driven and avoid being too pop sciencey are behind paywalls.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051026090636.htm

Note that most of what we have is pretty preliminary but it has been generally acknowledged that genetics has an influence but there is more to it. This does mean there could be a “treatment” for homosexuality by influencing or turning on or off those markers. Less controversially it could end in treatments for things like OCD, psychopathy, ADHD, and you could even tweak away predispositions to disease that came from random environmental factors like childhood diet or mom’s diet in uterus, or being raised in a home with lead paint or inhaling too much pollution or asbestos or even remove markers from smokin tobacco or alcoholism. This may be the answer to President Packer’s prayer for a scientific cure for addiction. It may even correct for the epigenetic effects of not getting enough affection as an infant, toddler, or child to some degree.

It is ethically dangerous ground but the benefits might make it worth it. It is still early though and we would need a good map before we can use it well. We already have basic tools that can alter epigenetic information.

Thanks. I’ll take a look. 

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Here is a good summary of epigemetics in general. Most of the good articles on homosexuality that are not agenda driven and avoid being too pop sciencey are behind paywalls.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051026090636.htm

Note that most of what we have is pretty preliminary but it has been generally acknowledged that genetics has an influence but there is more to it. This does mean there could be a “treatment” for homosexuality by influencing or turning on or off those markers. Less controversially it could end in treatments for things like OCD, psychopathy, ADHD, and you could even tweak away predispositions to disease that came from random environmental factors like childhood diet or mom’s diet in uterus, or being raised in a home with lead paint or inhaling too much pollution or asbestos or even remove markers from smokin tobacco or alcoholism. This may be the answer to President Packer’s prayer for a scientific cure for addiction. It may even correct for the epigenetic effects of not getting enough affection as an infant, toddler, or child to some degree.

It is ethically dangerous ground but the benefits might make it worth it. It is still early though and we would need a good map before we can use it well. We already have basic tools that can alter epigenetic information.

I wonder why you link this study to homosexuality?  There is noting in the paper that suggests such a link.  Are you just guessing that it might apply?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I wonder why you link this study to homosexuality?  There is noting in the paper that suggests such a link.  Are you just guessing that it might apply?

Quote

Here is a good summary of epigemetics in general. Most of the good articles on homosexuality that are not agenda driven and avoid being too pop sciencey are behind paywalls.

He explained in the beginning of his post why he posted as he did.  If you googlescholar epigenetics and homosexuality, tons of articles up. 
 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C45&q=epigenetics+and+homosexuality&btnG=

Edited May 12, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

I wonder why you link this study to homosexuality?  There is noting in the paper that suggests such a link.  Are you just guessing that it might apply?

I think he has explained that. The articles that apply directly to homosexuality are behind paywalls, which, if I’m not mistaken, we are not permitted to link to on this board. 
 

No matter. This link is enough to give me a fairly good introductory understanding. I think I can connect the dots myself as applying to homosexuality. Or I can seek out out further information on my own. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

The problem with trying to assign causation for suicides is causation can only be established with controlled experiments. Studies (which is all Stephen Cranney referenced) may establish correlation but no more. IMO it would be rare for any suicide to have just one factor. Cranney cites studies which support his view but is careful to use appropriate language in his conclusions.

"Not only is this information often inaccurate, but it goes against GLAAD’s own guidelines, and may in fact do more harm than good for some LGBT+ people."

"If you keep pushing the idea that all gay Latter-day Saints are depressed and suicidal, then those who are most vulnerable to that narrative may start to believe you. If you are contributing to the narrative that the only orthodox Latter-day Saint LGBT+ is a dead one, then you may in fact be hurting Latter-day Saint LGBT+ youth."

Emphasis mine.

In conclusion LDS theology may (or may not) be one of the factors in some of the LDS LGBTQ+ suicides.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Thinking

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I wonder why you link this study to homosexuality?  There is noting in the paper that suggests such a link.  Are you just guessing that it might apply?

I only had a few minutes and I could not find a good one that was available about epigenetics and homosexuality but I have read several so I put a general one without homosexuality to give the gist of what I was talking about.

Here is an okay article:

 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

The one thing I would add to it is that epigenetic change does not just occur in the womb. They occur throughout life. They are much more common in utero and in the very young but adults influence their own by diet and environment and the like. In the case of sexuality this explains why many people seem hardwired to an orientation when they are very young, others are unsure, and even more rarely some adults move between and have differing orientations over time (moving on that Kinsey scale). Sometimes these are triggered by events or environment. That being said genetics does control an increased possibility of atypical (sorry, trying to avoid offense but word choice is hard) sexual desires.

Epigenetics are also suspected of being tied to sexual disorders like hypersexuality, extreme and mild fetishes and kinks, and even what you find particularly attractive (many of these tied to early life sexual awakening experiences) in all orientations.

Again this is still early going and while interesting and I find it convincing that it plays a role how much of one is still being investigated.

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

even more rarely some adults move between and have differing orientations over time

It is not really that rare especially if you are talking about attractions and behaviour rather than labels.  Sexual fluidity is present in adulthood as well as youth. 
 

Quote

Now, sexual orientation does often express itself very early and very consistently. But, at times, it doesn't. And it breaks my heart when I hear people express distrust of LGBT individuals who came out late in life, for example, after a heterosexual marriage. People will say things like: "How could they not have known all this time?" "Are they sure that they're really gay?" (Laughter) Just imagine how it feels to hear that from someone that you just came out to. But the plain truth is that gender and sexual development show a lot more variability than most people realize. And that variability often leads to change over time in sexual attractions. National and international studies conducted by researchers at Cornell, the Harvard School of Public Health, the University of Virginia, and many others, have collectively tracked tens of thousands of individuals for five, ten, fifteen years. And guess what? Sexual attractions show a fair amount of fluidity. Some individuals start out exclusively attracted to one gender, and, over time, they find themselves attracted to both genders, or vice versa. Some bisexual individuals shift from being more drawn to one gender to being more drawn to the other

https://www.ted.com/talks/dr_lisa_diamond_why_the_born_this_way_argument_does_not_advance_lgbt_equality/transcript?language=en

For those who prefer data:

https://psych.utah.edu/_resources/documents/people/diamond/Sexual Fluidity in Males and Females.pdf

Edited May 12, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

The author posted this on his public Facebook page, and there was in my opinion a really good response by Kendall Wilcox, who is a former project lead at the Utah Commission on LGBTQ Suicide Prevention:

Quote

 

Sometimes we are called to act even with the absence of proof.
Also... "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

This article simply highlights that -currently- there are insufficient peer-reviewed data that clearly establish the teachings and practices of the LDS Church as the chief causal factor in LDS LGBTQ+ suicide. And of course, such data, as you explain, is extremely difficult to find, given the myriad mitigating factors. And yes, simplistic, cause & effect narratives about the fate of any at-risk population can be a significant contagion factor and never capture the complexity of each lived experience.

Yet at the same time, it is empirically established that the teachings and practices of the LDS Church are objectively harmful to most LGBTQ+ members. These harms can become a significant complicating factor in the mental and emotional wellbeing of LGBTQ+ people; impeding their ability to function, let alone thrive. And that should not be interpreted as a character flaw or lack of fortitude or lack of faith in LGBTQ+ people. It is a natural and normal response to negative messages and faith-community-rejecting behaviors.

In fact, in this study the majority of respondents identified as 'active members' and yet they experienced diagnosable PTSD and spiritual trauma as a result of their exposure to the teachings and practices of the LDS Church. 'Faithfulness' and orthodoxy were not prophylactics against the spiritual trauma and PTSD: https://getd.libs.uga.edu/.../simmons_brian_w_201712_phd.pdf

So while it is true that we currently do not have an overwhelming preponderance of peer-reviewed data indicating the teachings and practices of the LDS Church are the single causal factor in the suicide deaths of LGBTQ+ Mormons, it is clear from mountains and decades of anecdotal evidence and a growing stock of peer-reviewed data that the teachings and practices of the LDS Church are objectively harmful to LGBTQ+ people and can reasonably be considered *mitigating* factors in LGBTQ+ LDS suicide deaths.

What is alarmingly absent from this analysis is an attempt to empathize or even understand why/how these teachings and practices can in fact be harmful to LGBTQ+ people. I suppose that was not the main intention of this piece.

I also take exception to this statement in your summary paragraph: "The parents who will not speak to their child because the child is gay are just as sad and hurtful as the gay child who will not speak to her parents because they believe that exaltation involves the eternal union of a male and female pair."

That is a false equivalent. It is not "just as sad and hurtful." This statement does not take into account the power differential in relationships. In this case, the parents *tend* to have more power and control in the relationship. The child tends to need acceptance and nurturance from their parent. When the parent believes that their child is unworthy of equal rights in this life and exaltation in the next (unless they chose to live what is for most, and unhealthy lifestyle of celibacy or marriage to the sex with which they are unable to fully bond), it can be devastating to the child. The child can feel that they do not belong in the faith community or in the family - no matter how much the parents may protest that they 'love' their child. Such alienation can be wounding and destructive.

I can't speak as a parent but I dare say that the marginalization and condemnation that the child experiences, far outweighs the sadness or remorse that the parents feel. They are not being spoken to because they choose to believe something that is objectively harmful to their child. So the child is protecting themselves from that harm.

And yeah, a 'scorched earth' approach is generally not helpful to long-term growth and understanding but we also need to traffic in accurate comparisons and characterizations of each individual's experience in order for this dialogue to be productive.

 

 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That premise has been largely discredited. It is not believed to be genetic. If it were identical twins would always have the same sexuality and that is not the case. 

Well it is, and you say so later when you say:  "it has been generally acknowledged that genetics has an influence but there is more to it."

I agree that the born that way doesn't really add anything to the discussion if taken literally, but it was never meant to be a literal statement other than used as a matter of speaking.  On that, I don't think the matter of speaking is largely discredited.  

I will add generally, anecdotally, many LGBTQ LDS and former LDS have reported suicidal tendencies and often put at least part of the onus on Church teaching for such a state of mind.  As it is, cause of suicide is just very complex and studies struggle, because as another pointed out, there is no possibility for controlled experiments.  The peddling of lines saying something like, "well since we don't know, that means LDS teaching isn't a contributing factor to suicides" is very unhelpful.  Its also very possibly untrue.  As it is, the teachings have contributed to suicidal tendencies amongst survivors, at least as some have told me.  You can argue a survivor who reports "LDS teaching had contributed to me being very suicidal" is just mixed up or can't be real sure that the teaching contributed to his/her suicidal tendencies.  But you'd be arguing against reason--the very reason a person decides his/her own personal discoveries.  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I only had a few minutes and I could not find a good one that was available about epigenetics and homosexuality but I have read several so I put a general one without homosexuality to give the gist of what I was talking about.

Here is an okay article:

 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

The one thing I would add to it is that epigenetic change does not just occur in the womb. They occur throughout life. They are much more common in utero and in the very young but adults influence their own by diet and environment and the like. In the case of sexuality this explains why many people seem hardwired to an orientation when they are very young, others are unsure, and even more rarely some adults move between and have differing orientations over time (moving on that Kinsey scale). Sometimes these are triggered by events or environment. That being said genetics does control an increased possibility of atypical (sorry, trying to avoid offense but word choice is hard) sexual desires.

Epigenetics are also suspected of being tied to sexual disorders like hypersexuality, extreme and mild fetishes and kinks, and even what you find particularly attractive (many of these tied to early life sexual awakening experiences) in all orientations.

Again this is still early going and while interesting and I find it convincing that it plays a role how much of one is still being investigated.

Thank you and Calm for posting the clarification. I have read some of this information and the clarification helped me connect what I have read previously with what you referenced.  

I might add that through the years, I have read numerous scientific  ideas on what makes a person gay.  I am sure more research will further our understanding of this issue.  Personally, I have never really cared what the explanation is, what is very clear is being gay is not some choice based on desire.  I knew I was gay when I was 12 years old and spent decades, even to the point of marrying a woman on the promise of Church leaders to try and change that orientation.  Trying to convert people to become straight has been proven to not only not work, but to be harmful.  While it is interesting to explore what actually happens, it is quite irrelevant to that orientation being unchangeable.

[california boy]

I personally don't believe that the Church policies are as much a direct result of increased suicides as much as members parents reaction to their children being gay.  Science is very clear that parent rejection of their children no matter what the orientation significantly increases the risk of suicide.  The CDC says this about how parents of gay children can significantly help a child that is gay.

Quote

What Parents Can Do

Positive parenting practices, such as having honest and open conversations, can help reduce teen health risk behaviors. How parents engage with their LGB teen can have a tremendous impact on their adolescent’s current and future mental and physical health.¹⁷ Supportive and accepting parents can help youth cope with the challenges of being an LGB teen.¹⁸ On the other hand, unsupportive parents who react negatively to learning that their daughter or son is LGB can make it harder for their teen to thrive. Parental rejection has been linked to depression, use of drugs and alcohol, and risky sexual behavior among teens.^19,20

To be supportive, parents should talk openly and supportively with their teen about any problems or concerns. It is also important for parents to watch for behaviors that might indicate their teen is a victim of bullying or violence―or that their teen may be victimizing others. If bullying, violence, or depression is suspected, parents should take immediate action, working with school personnel and other adults in the community.

More Resources for Parents to Help Them Better Understand and Respond to the Needs of LGBTQ Adolescents

 

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well it is, and you say so later when you say:  "it has been generally acknowledged that genetics has an influence but there is more to it."

I agree that the born that way doesn't really add anything to the discussion if taken literally, but it was never meant to be a literal statement other than used as a matter of speaking.  On that, I don't think the matter of speaking is largely discredited.  

I will add generally, anecdotally, many LGBTQ LDS and former LDS have reported suicidal tendencies and often put at least part of the onus on Church teaching for such a state of mind.  As it is, cause of suicide is just very complex and studies struggle, because as another pointed out, there is no possibility for controlled experiments.  The peddling of lines saying something like, "well since we don't know, that means LDS teaching isn't a contributing factor to suicides" is very unhelpful.  Its also very possibly untrue.  As it is, the teachings have contributed to suicidal tendencies amongst survivors, at least as some have told me.  You can argue a survivor who reports "LDS teaching had contributed to me being very suicidal" is just mixed up or can't be real sure that the teaching contributed to his/her suicidal tendencies.  But you'd be arguing against reason--the very reason a person decides his/her own personal discoveries.  

I wonder if one day the recent statements from Pres. Oaks will be deleted. I hope they will be taken from the LDS church's public pages because of how harmful they are. But that would be a hard task for the church to do, it would alarm many that those words weren't from God after all. Just as the church has taken a step back from their words about blacks denied the Priesthood.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Tacenda

[california boy]

How many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would attend a LGBT wedding?  How many members support bakers who refuse to bake wedding cakes for LGBT weddings.  How many members would bake a cake for a LGBT wedding?  How many members would invite the parter of their gay child to dinner?  How many members would allow the spouse of their LGBT child to spend the night at their house?  How many members would want the spouse of a LGBT child included in family photos?  How many members would include that couple to all family activities?

Before the whole shelter in place mandate, I had a very lengthy conversation with my ex wife about homosexuality and the Church.  We have always remained friends and she felt she needed more understanding.  We talked for a couple of hours, and I answered many of her questions from my point of view.  She was half way through reading Tom Christofferson's book, "That We May Be One:  A Gay Mormon's Perspective on Faith and Family.".  She asked me if I would read it and we could talk about it.  I took the book, read it over the next couple of days and then sent it to her to finish.  After we both had read the book, we had another 2 hour discussion which she found to be very helpful.  

Tom's parents reaction to their son being gay is quite remarkable and not at all typical of a lot of the parents of LGBT children.  Tom talks about how his parents assured him that their love for him did not change one bit.  They showed that love by not changing their behavior, acceptance, and love towards him one bit.  It simply was a non issue for his parents, and because of that, the rest of his family.  When Tom found a partner, he too was welcomed into the family and both were loved just as much as the spouses of the other children.  Tom and his partner were invited to family events.  As a couple they had dinner with the rest of the family.  Sometimes, they spent the night along with the spouses of his siblings at family reunions and at his parents home.  His family made no distinction between his partner and the partner of their other children.

Tom writes about attending Church back east and how welcoming the ward and church leadership was to him and his partner.  While that has not been my experience, I think having a brother that is an apostle certainly helped with that acceptance.  Tom always introduced himself and his partner and Church leaders were well aware of who his brother was.  Tom never felt a lack of love and acceptance from his parents.  He never felt rejected and marginalized by members of the Church.  He was allowed to be accepted by those that loved him for who he was, not for someone his parents or the Church thought he should be.  

The doctrine of the Church didn't change for Tom, but the way his family responded to him being gay was a change from the way most LGBT experience.   I have talked to a ton of LGBT people who used to belong to the Church.  Every one of the people I have talked to did not have this kind of reaction and experience from their families.  As I have mentioned before, I myself, was not invited or allowed to participate in family activities for 13 years.  Never a dinner, never invited to family gatherings, not invited to baptisms or missionary farewells of my nieces and nephews.  I literally never saw them again the whole time they were growing up.  If you don't think that has an affect on your life, then lucky you for never having experienced it.  What is troubling to me is that my family thought they were doing what the Church wanted them to do.  They thought that they should not allow this sin into their family.  What about the their children.  they needed to be isolated from me so that I wouldn't corrupt them.  Keeping me as part of the family sent the wrong message to others in the family.  The best way to deal with having a gay son was to isolate the problem and build protective walls.  Of all the members in my ward and stake, only two ever invited me into their homes after they learned I was gay.  Clearly the entire Church felt the best solution was to cut off all contact, friendship and support towards me.  While I personally never contemplated suicide, I was an adult when dealing with this issue and I clearly knew who I was.  

Think about how you personally thought about the questions I asked at the beginning of my post.  Think about how Tom's parents answered those questions.  Is there a lot of misunderstanding within the culture of the Church that has nothing to do with the doctrine that could change?  Are the only LGBT members of the Church that deserve love and respect and inclusiveness are the ones that choose celibacy?  

I post on this board in hopes to change attitudes and perhaps experiences of others in the Church that are LGBT.  I try and give a different perspective from the one that many stanch members have on this issue.  I try to understand the perspective of current Church members.  Sometimes I think my posting has done nothing to change anyone's attitudes towards the LGBT community and maybe for some have only intrenched them in their animosity towards that community.  I have been thinking strongly of taking a long break from this board.  I don't think my contributions have done much at all to change attitudes.  So what is the point of continuing to post?  Those that support what I am saying are pretty much the same people.  Those that oppose everything I say on this issue are also pretty much the same.  They think that what I post is anti Mormon.  Sadly, maybe they have a point because what I do post is often against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints culture.

[Islander]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So if a teenage boy and girl were marooned on a desert island and neither had been taught anything about sex you would hold they would be unlikely to be able to reproduce? I have my doubts. While some is learned much of it is instinctual.

That is an unproven theory. Arousal and curiosity are genetically coded but the mechanics of physical copulation are not. Without getting too graphical, it is possible that they may discover physical arousal or "what feels good" in the tactile sense. But procreation requires some "know how" that is not instinctual to humans. The jury is still out on that one since it remains a hypothetical. As far as we know, even in primitive societies, the "birds and the bees" conversation takes place in very candid ways. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would attend a LGBT wedding?  

Some would, some wouldn't.  Hard to say.

For myself, I am not sure if I would attend.  Here is my basic thinking:

1. I sustain the Church's position on same-sex marriage.
2. I also sustain the Church's position on demonstrating love and compassion to those who have same-sex attraction.
3. Attendees at a wedding are traditionally construed as witnesses and celebrants of the event.  Frankly, I have a hard time conceptualizing an attendee at a wedding attending for some reason that is exclusive of supporting or endorsing or celebrating the marriage.  Celebrating the union is the whole point of the event.
4. For myself, I do not think I could reconcile myself to "celebrating" (through attendance at) an event that is so at odds with the Restored Gospel in relation to its teachings about marriage and the Law of Chastity.  It would be a violation of my personal moral code.
5. If invited to a same-sex wedding, I would decline.  I would do so privately, preferably in person (and perhaps preceded by an explanatory letter).  I would explain my position, while also expressing love and affection for the individuals.
6. Although I would decline to attend such a wedding, I would thereafter welcome the couple to attend any private or family activities and events to which I would invite others, and would treat them with love, decorum, tolerance and understanding.  I think shunning or ignoring or dissociating such a couple would not be appropriate (and, in fact, largely at odds with the Restored Gospel).
7. In the main, an individual's attendance at a wedding is incidental.  All the more reason why Latter-day Saints needn't be censured if they decline to attend a same-sex wedding.  Their non-attendance is often both A) immaterial to the event, and hence generally harmless to the couple getting married, and B) congruent with the Latter-day Saint's conscience, and hence harmless to the Latter-day Saint.

We had a conversation about this same topic in 2016.  An excerpt:

Quote

Quote

{Pogi}: The significance of attendance is what you make of it, it is not for others to decide for you.  

{Smac}: With respect, I think that is naive.  If I march in a NARAL-funded pro-abortion parade, I can't say that "the significance of my marching in a pro-abortion parade is what I make of it, it is not for others to decide for me."

The impression I give to others by marching in a pro-abortion parade is . . . that I support NARAL and am pro-abortion.  The impression I give to others will be based on my conduct, and it is for them to decide, not for me to decide for them.  

Quote

I may be a bit naive, but not more than Christ who frequently discounted the significance of impressions of others.  

I see your point.  Christ dining with sinners does not equate to an endorsement of their sins.  I agree with that.

But attending a wedding does, I think, equate to such an endorsement.  Christ justified His dining with sinners by saying "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick."  I have always taken this to mean that Christ was dining with sinners not because He was joining with them and celebrating their sins.  Rather, He dined with them in order to help them realize that they are loved despite their sins, and that repentance is possible.

I do not see how attendance at a same-sex wedding is reconcilable with the example Christ set here.

Quote

He did what he felt was right, without regard to the consequences.  He knew that the "believers" would probably persecute him, while the sinners would turn to him. 

This presupposes that celebrating and endorsing a same-sex wedding is "right."  I am not sure such a presupposition is warranted.

Quote

I personally feel that the only people who would have negative impressions of me for attending such an event would be the stone-throwing believers.  However, my attendance would leave impressions from the other side that would speak worlds of good about my Christian beliefs, practices, and principles.

As you like.  I have a more charitable view of my fellow believers (I find offensive your characterization of believers who differ from you on this point as "stone-throwing").  I also think that opponents of the Church will likely exploit the participation of Latter-day Saints in same-sex weddings as rhetorical weapons against the LDS Church.  I think they will attempt to use such Latter-day Saints as leverage against the leaders of the Church, to foment discord and disunity in the Church, to characterize Latter-day Saints who decline to participate in same-sex weddings as judgmental bigots (or, as you put it, "stone-throwing believers"), and so on.
...
The more I think on the ramifications of attending a same-sex wedding, the more inclined I am to be definitive in my decision to not attend one, even that of a family member.  I think the patent symbolism of participating in such an event is too incongruous with my personal beliefs, my moral code, and my desire to not give false or misleading impressions to others.

And here:

Quote

Quote

{Jeanne}: For those of you who have said no...no way..even if family...would you attend their funeral?  Seriously, I hope not.

{Smac}: Yes, I would attend a funeral.  The two events (a wedding and a funeral) are not comparable for the purposes of this discussion.

And here:

Quote

Quote

{Daniel}: Jeanne, from my perspective, it's unfortunate that when it comes to attending temple wedding ceremonies 

{Smac}: 

Attending temple weddings is a unique and particular circumstance.  Attendance is simply not feasible for those who do not hold a current temple recommend.  And there are plenty of people in and out of the Church in such circumstances.  So it's not like the Church is being mendacious or vindictive about this, nor are they targeting former members of the Church or homosexual persons.  But of course, we knew all of this already.

A couple who chooses to to marry in the temple know ahead of time that some friends and relatives will not be able to attend.  But they choose to proceed because of sacred and deeply-held beliefs.  Meanwhile, couples all over the place choose to get married in unusual or remote locations, knowing ahead of time that many of their friends and relatives will not be able to attend (due to distance, expense, etc.).  Choosing an exotic venue is often done for relatively trivial reasons (glitz n' glamour, bragging rights, cool pics on Facebook, 'cuz they "just felt like it," etc.), and yet nobody hectors this couple or their religion for choosing such a venue.

Give it a rest, already.  

Quote

or speaking at (though not attending) family members' funerals hosted in LDS chapels, the LDS Church prevents those of us who have left the church to fully participate. 

First, I'm not familiar with restrictions on attending funerals in LDS chapels.  Everyone is welcome.  Can you expound on who is "prevented" from participating in a funeral in an LDS chapel?  I have reviewed section 18.6.4 of Handbook 2 of the Church Handbook of Instructions, and there is no mention of "prevent{ing} those of us who have left the church" from participating.  

Second, funerals are not "hosted in LDS chapels."  A funeral is a meeting/service conducted by the Church.  It is a religious service.

Third, there is no requirement that LDS funerals take place in the chapel.  The family makes that decision.  

Fourth, if the family chooses to request a funeral service in an LDS chapel, then they are requesting that the Church conduct a religious service in a consecrated building.  And they know ahead of time that it will be conducted per the guidelines promulgated by the Church.

Fifth, the Church's guidelines for funerals are eminently reasonable.

Quote

That strikes me as a sad irony, given the church's intended goal of uniting families... though I fully understand that most active Latter-day Saints view it differently, and why they do.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  LDS funerals are open to anyone and everyone (except, I suppose, people who are disruptive, violent, etc.).

We had a funeral in our ward a while back that involved a family that is almost entirely inactive.  The decedent's circle of friends were mostly non-LDS, but his mother asked that the funeral take place in our building.  Family and friends were quite pleased with how the services were performed by the bishop, with one exception: because the decedent was something of a cowboy, they wanted the prelude music to be "cowboy" music ("The Yellow Rose of Texas" and such).  The bishop explained that this would not be appropriate during the service itself, but that such music could be played during the luncheon (also held at the church building, with the food provided by members of our ward).  The family concurred with this and later said that having the decedent's favorite music playing during the luncheon actually worked out better because it sparked a lot of reminisces and discussions between family and friends, which they could not have done during the service itself.

I sense in this thread a certain level of intolerance with LDS belief and practice.  That is unfortunate, I think.  Openness, "diversity," inclusivity, etc. are apparently doors that only swing one way.

We seldom seem to have topics that have not been (extensively) discussed previously.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How many members support bakers who refuse to bake wedding cakes for LGBT weddings.  

Plenty, I imagine.  I think these same members would generally oppose the government's threats of fine and imprisonment for private parties who refuse to submit to demands for compelled speech.  For example, I think most members would support a Jewish baker who refused to bake/decorate this:

Or a Christian baker who refused to bake/decorate this:

Or a male baker who refused to bake/decorate this:

I'm a big fan of Free Speech.  Are you?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How many members would bake a cake for a LGBT wedding?  

A generic, nondescript, non-message-conveying cake?  I think most would have no problem.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How many members would invite the partner of their gay child to dinner?  

Most, I think.  

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How many members would allow the spouse of their LGBT child to spend the night at their house?  

I think most would not be comfortable with this (as they would not be comfortable with an adult child spending the night in their home with their live-in girlfriend).

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How many members would want the spouse of a LGBT child included in family photos?  

Most, I think.  They are family, after all.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How many members would include that couple to all family activities?

Most, I think.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Are the only LGBT members of the Church that deserve love and respect and inclusiveness are the ones that choose celibacy?  

No.  But surely the "love and respect and inclusiveness" door swings both ways?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

How many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would attend a LGBT wedding?  

If I was invited, and I was close to one of the participants, I would go.  For me, it would be about supporting and loving the individual.  I wouldn't see it as any different than going to a baby shower given for an unmarried friend.

[Damien the Leper]

Is there any actual systematic theology in Mormonism? I'm aware of Hamblin's absurd hesitancy to recognize anyone as an LDS theologian and so he is to be disregarded. Sorry to go off topic.

If an LGBT+ person is somehow emotionally or mentally affected by LDS teaching on homosexual relationship and marriage then they should simply ignore it or walk away. The LDS church isn't the vessel for everyone. For some it's a sinking ship. That is not meant to devalue the LDS church as it can be a lush religious paradise for others. It's just not a one size fits all religion.

[Rain]

I may be the only one wondering, but would someone please explain in simple terms the difference in doctrine and in theology? And how does that apply with this topic?