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

[Calm]

My way of describing it is theology explains doctrine, it gives the reasons for things through theories. Which is why I don’t see us as having a systematic one that is intended to present a complete understanding, instead we have a narrative theology. We explain our beliefs through stories....which allows for a lot of personal interpretation and adaptation.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

My way of describing it is theology explains doctrine, it gives the reasons for things through theories. Which is why I don’t see us as having a systematic one that is intended to present a complete understanding, instead we have a narrative theology. We explain our beliefs through stories....which allows for a lot of personal interpretation and adaptation.

It does seem like attempts to explain doctrine or present a Mormon systematic theology gets people in trouble.  Often afterward people call it their opinion or speculation.  

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quoting article:  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.

I disagree with this.  I think it depends on individuals and age.  My sibling cut off all contact with my parents at a time in their lives when they needed support from their family and it was devastating.  My dad said he would become physically ill when faced with it (as in having to control vomiting) My mother has nightmares and anxiety attacks about it at times and with her dementia has a very hard time dealing with it.  My sibling also had a great deal of control over the relationship as for years they, much more than my parents, were dictating what was and was not allowed. (It was not an LGBT issue)

Edited May 13, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

On 5/12/2020 at 5:24 AM, Meadowchik said:

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.

The previous claim is this is objectively determined.  But from the study referenced to demonstrate this it states:

Quote

On average, participants identified 13.8 religious beliefs, teachings, or experiences as “damaging” or “extremely damaging.”  

That is not an objective measure as described, but a subjective response.  They believe or felt such was damaging, but what may have been actually damaging was something else...like what someone told them them they should feel about those ideas or feelings about the person sharing those ideas.  They may also be right.

The methodology does not appear to describe in the spiritual trauma section identified demonstrated neutral teachings and experiences being included as a comparison.  It is possible their perception weights everything Church related as negative for reasons that may not be part of the study.  This may be covered by the previous sections, I didn't go in depth in those due to time. 

Quote

Although items were reviewed by several self-identified LGBTQQA Mormons or ex-Mormons prior to survey data collection, items on this measure suffered from substantial missing data in the form of “not applicable” responses. To address this missing data, 11 items were removed from score summation (four from leadership trauma and seven from traumatic beliefs). To address item nonresponse in the remaining 21 items, total scores were calculated only for respondents with valid responses to at least 11 items.  

If reading this correctly, it sounds like for the analysis of trauma, they only included the experiences of those who had encountered such.  While that can tell us about those who encountered such, it is less informative about the full experience...think of it like a study that only includes those who were exposed to Covid while ignoring the rest of the population who weren't.  Making decisions for the full population based solely on the experiences of those exposed to trauma is unwise.

Someone better schooled in stats needs to look at the study to see if its methodology covers these issues I see as likely problems, been too long since my psych research classes.  If I can interest my husband, who does this kind of stuff for entrepreneurship both himself and reviewing others' work for journals, I will report on his review of the study.

added:  he just started a new semester and he needs to create new material being completely online, so he won’t be able to look for awhile, it at all.  He has his first week ‘too little time, too many things to do’ look, so not even going to ask him until next week. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

13 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."

DNA is estimated to make up about 25 to 30 percent of the ‘influence’ on a person’s orientation. Based on this it is a significant factor but not a dominant one.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

With the possible exception of voluntarily getting some kind of sexual addiction (through experience or porn) I agree It is not a choice. Also sex addiction is a bad situation no matter what orientation it displays or suppresses.

That being said if epigenetics do hold a dominant role  then you could tweak it to try to change attraction. Not sure if it would work. It would not change your memory or habits. It would be interesting to see what would change but there are all kinds of ethical concerns in doing so even if the person volunteered.

[sweetpotatoh]

Are we required to accept homosexuality? While I believe and sustain the church’s position and Elder Oaks recent comments, that doesn’t mean I can’t be nice and sensitive towards others who believe differently. I have unanswered questions  about this subject and I choose to take it all on faith. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, sweetpotatoh said:

Are we required to accept homosexuality?

Accept that it exists? Not sure what you mean here.

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

The previous claim is this is objectively determined.  But from the study referenced to demonstrate this it states:

That is not an objective measure as described, but a subjective response.  They believe or felt such was damaging, but what may have been actually damaging was something else...like what someone told them them they should feel about those ideas or feelings about the person sharing those ideas.  They may also be right.

The methodology does not appear to describe in the spiritual trauma section identified demonstrated neutral teachings and experiences being included as a comparison.  It is possible their perception weights everything Church related as negative for reasons that may not be part of the study.  This may be covered by the previous sections, I didn't go in depth in those due to time. 

If reading this correctly, it sounds like for the analysis of trauma, they only included the experiences of those who had encountered such.  While that can tell us about those who encountered such, it is less informative about the full experience...think of it like a study that only includes those who were exposed to Covid while ignoring the rest of the population who weren't.  Making decisions for the full population based solely on the experiences of those exposed to trauma is unwise.

Someone better schooled in stats needs to look at the study to see if its methodology covers these issues I see as likely problems, been to long since my psych research classes.  If I can interest my husband, who does this kind of stuff for entrepreneurship both himself and reviewing others' work for journals, I will report on his review of the study.

added:  he just started a new semester and he needs to create new material being completely online, so he won’t be able to look for awhile, it at all.  He has his first week ‘too little time, too many things to do’ look, so not even going to ask him until next week. 

Calm, you attributed the post I quoted to me. While I quoted it because I appreciated it, I do not want to falsely claim someone else's words as my own.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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:

 

Somebody seems loath to let go of a cherished accusation.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Somebody seems loath to let go of a cherished accusation.

That sounds like you are trivialising valid concerns about a legitimate issue.

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

DNA is estimated to make up about 25 to 30 percent of the ‘influence’ on a person’s orientation. Based on this it is a significant factor but not a dominant one.

Great.  So why the claim there is was no influence when you said "It is not believed to be genetic."?  It does appear there is some genetics involved.  

[smac97]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

DNA is estimated to make up about 25 to 30 percent of the ‘influence’ on a person’s orientation. Based on this it is a significant factor but not a dominant one.

Could you provide a reference for this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

The previous claim is this is objectively determined.  But from the study referenced to demonstrate this it states:

That is not an objective measure as described, but a subjective response.  They believe or felt such was damaging, but what may have been actually damaging was something else...like what someone told them them they should feel about those ideas or feelings about the person sharing those ideas.  They may also be right.

I don't understand how was this described as anything but respondents answers to a question?  "respondents reported 
13.8 ecclesiastical interactions or religious beliefs/teachings as being “damaging” or “extremely 
damaging.”"  This would suggest the count is probably low compared to what was experienced.  How would they possibly account for how many experiences with a leader, or how many times a teaching was damaging or extremely damaging?  This suggests they were only able to count those which they remembered.  

Quote

The methodology does not appear to describe in the spiritual trauma section identified demonstrated neutral teachings and experiences being included as a comparison.  It is possible their perception weights everything Church related as negative for reasons that may not be part of the study.  This may be covered by the previous sections, I didn't go in depth in those due to time. 

If reading this correctly, it sounds like for the analysis of trauma, they only included the experiences of those who had encountered such.  While that can tell us about those who encountered such, it is less informative about the full experience...think of it like a study that only includes those who were exposed to Covid while ignoring the rest of the population who weren't.  Making decisions for the full population based solely on the experiences of those exposed to trauma is unwise.

It doesn't say any of the population was ignored.  It says 11 items (4 for leadership trauma and 7 for beliefs)  were thrown out due to inconclusive data.  Other items also accounted for leadership trauma or belief trauma.  So anyone who might have felt an N/A was applicable to one item pertaining to leadership trauma, might have reported a positive for another item pertaining to leadership trauma.  All of the items and their results are shown in table 9.  Looking at the numbers for some of the questions is really telling.  The ones missing, I'm guessing, are the ones with high rates of no answers--the questions involving gender identify for example (that makes sense since most respondents likely don't questions their gender identity).  

Additionally over half of respondents attend church monthly, at least, and nearly 2/3rds were members in good standing.  Thus, there is the possibility that some respondents were going in to spin it all as positive in order to defend the Church.  

Quote

Someone better schooled in stats needs to look at the study to see if its methodology covers these issues I see as likely problems, been to long since my psych research classes.  If I can interest my husband, who does this kind of stuff for entrepreneurship both himself and reviewing others' work for journals, I will report on his review of the study.

added:  he just started a new semester and he needs to create new material being completely online, so he won’t be able to look for awhile, it at all.  He has his first week ‘too little time, too many things to do’ look, so not even going to ask him until next week. 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by stemelbow

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Great.  So why the claim there is was no influence when you said "It is not believed to be genetic."?  It does appear there is some genetics involved.  

Because I meant to say “not primarily genetic” but I am lazy and do not proofread. The laziness is 87% genetic.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Calm, you attributed the post I quoted to me. While I quoted it because I appreciated it, I do not want to falsely claim someone else's words as my own.

I used "quoted" to distinguish, but will make it more obvious later as I am really asleep right now...if only.

[sweetpotatoh]

I guess I mean accept it as the world does. I don’t accept it as the world does because I sustain the leaders of The Church. I also try to treat everyone as Christ would. Emphasis on try. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by sweetpotatoh
Fix punctuation

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide a reference for this?

Thanks,

-Smac

Here is one that thinks my numbers are a little high: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/

This one pegs it a little higher: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-is-sexual-orientation-genetic-yes-and-no-an-extensive-study-finds-1.8129471

I cannot find the study that I read a few months ago that gave the range I posted but it was more recent than these. Best I can do.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, sweetpotatoh said:

I guess I mean accept it as the world does. I don’t accept it as the world does because I sustain the leaders of The Church. I also try to treat everyone as Christ would. Emphasis on try. 

You do not have to do anything then. I thought you meant accept that homosexuality exists. If you were choosing to deny that I was going to recommend the loony bin.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/13/2020 at 6:37 AM, Meadowchik said:

That sounds like you are trivialising valid concerns about a legitimate issue.

On the contrary, I am concerned about potential harm being visited upon our troubled youth by rampant but unsubstantiated or untrue assumptions and stereotypes. It worries me a great deal. 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On the contrary, I am concerned about potential harm being visited upon our troubled youth by rampant but unsubstantiated or untrue assumptions and stereotypes. It worries me a great deal. 

Kendall Wilcox is also concerned, and I do remember him and other Mormon LGBTQIA advocates expressing concern about both the contagion effect and harm from the church. People can be deeply concerned about both.

Wilcox is known for being anxiously engaged in these safety concerns.

It took me about 5 seconds to find this public Facebook post of his from 2016, where he quoted a SLTrib opinion piece:

Quote

"Increased awareness of the problem can help all members of society "to reach out in an active, caring way to all, especially to youth who feel estranged or isolated" (LDS Church statement of Jan. 28). Family support and acceptance is critical for preventing depression and suicide in LGBTQ youth. (See, for example, guidelines from the Family Acceptance Project at San Francisco State University, including materials especially for LDS families). All youth should be made aware of existing, confidential community resources for those with questions about sexuality. Media are encouraged to follow responsible reporting guidelines that do not spread suicide contagion."

I think you could probably learn a lot from him.

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/12/2020 at 10:28 AM, california boy said:

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?.  

How many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would attend a LGBT wedding?  I probably would not. 

How many members support bakers who refuse to bake wedding cakes for LGBT weddings.    I would support the baker.  I believe in liberty.  I don't believe people should be forced to do work they do not want to do.  I would also support a Jewish baker and their refusal to make a cake for a Nazi supporting group. Nobody should perform work that is against their conscience.

 How many members would bake a cake for a LGBT wedding?   I would not mind.  Making cakes are not hard.  If i had a friend in the porn business, I would make a cake for them as well.   Baking cakes for someone is not validation of their decisions or behavior.

How many members would invite the parter of their gay child to dinner?   I probably would allow that.  If my kid was in the porn business, I would probably let another friend who is in the business over for dinner.  The sin is on their heads, not mine.  That gesture would not be a validation of their decisions or behavior.

How many members would allow the spouse of their LGBT child to spend the night at their house?   Probably would allow it.  Same reasons if I had a kid in the porn business for the same reasons above.

How many members would want the spouse of a LGBT child included in family photos?   Probably would.  If my son had a couple of of wives, they could be in the family photo also.    If he was living with a girlfriend, she can be in the family photo if he wants her to be there.

How many members would include that couple to all family activities?.  Obviously it can't be to all family activities if a family activity is to the temple.  However I would include such a child as I would include my kid if he was living with his girlfriend.  Once again, sin is on their head.  Allowing that does not mean I accept their choices or lifestyle. 

Overall, I have my standards.  A responsibility of a parent is to teach their kids right and wrong.  Once their kids become adults, they have the right to live their own lives and they are accountable for their decisions. The parents have a responsibility to love them.  Just as Lehi loved Laman and Lemual. 

[Duncan]

if something bad like suicide happens then no, the Church/Gospel isn't responsible, when something good or blessings happens then the yes, Church/Gospel is responsible. In my area the Church wanted to build the Temple in an affluent area and got a ton of opposition and it was discovered there were a lot of Jewish people living there and members blamed the Jews, like it was 1937 or something for not wanting the Temple. Then they moved the Temple to another affluent area and it was approved and that was chalked up to our prayers, apparently our prayers didn't work before but now somehow they did

[Kenngo1969]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if something bad like suicide happens then no, the Church/Gospel isn't responsible, when something good or blessings happens then the yes, Church/Gospel is responsible. In my area the Church wanted to build the Temple in an affluent area and got a ton of opposition and it was discovered there were a lot of Jewish people living there and members blamed the Jews, like it was 1937 or something for not wanting the Temple. Then they moved the Temple to another affluent area and it was approved and that was chalked up to our prayers, apparently our prayers didn't work before but now somehow they did

Your first sentence seems to be quite an overgeneralization. If I believe that the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints require me to reject or to shun my gay or lesbian child [or my fill-in-the-blank child], then, indeed, that is problematic.  Does the Church of Jesus Christ teach that I should reject or shun my child under any circumstances?  Is the Church responsible if I believe that it teaches that I should reject or shun my child?  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/

I'm intrigued by the passive phrasing in your second sentence: "It was discovered" and "[anonymous] members blamed the Jews."  Brother or Sister So-and-so might be members of the Church of Jesus Christ, they (and perhaps a group of their like-minded fellows) might have discovered (or, more likely, simply posited) that the population of a particular area is heavily Jewish, and they might have blamed "the Jews" for opposition to a Temple in a particular area.  But even if that is so, the amorphous entity "members" (and, by extension, the group to which those "members" belong) aren't responsible for what Brother and Sister So-and-so and their like-minded fellows believe about Jews or about their being the primary source of opposition to a Temple.

If someone believes that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is responsible for all of the good that happens in the world, then, frankly, given our minuscule numbers, we're in trouble.  Rather, I think "The spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world" (Doctrine and Covenants 84:46; see also John 1:9), and "Inasmuch as men do good, they shall in nowise lose their reward" (Doctrine and Covenants 58:28).

If you believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its teachings are responsible for suicide, I think that is unfortunate.  Is it easier to conclude that events are random, and that the Lord has absolutely no hand in anything that happens?  If one insists on empirical evidence, then, yes, it is easier to draw that conclusion than it is to posit that He has any hand in humanity's affairs, since, to whatever extent He does have a hand in such affairs, it is unseen.  I don't claim to know the mind of God and why, apparently, He chooses to intervene in some circumstances and not in others.  But I have faith in His purposes, both at any given point in time and in the long run.

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

How many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would attend a LGBT wedding?  I probably would not. 

How many members support bakers who refuse to bake wedding cakes for LGBT weddings.    I would support the baker.  I believe in liberty.  I don't believe people should be forced to do work they do not want to do.  I would also support a Jewish baker and their refusal to make a cake for a Nazi supporting group. Nobody should perform work that is against their conscience.

 How many members would bake a cake for a LGBT wedding?   I would not mind.  Making cakes are not hard.  If i had a friend in the porn business, I would make a cake for them as well.   Baking cakes for someone is not validation of their decisions or behavior.

How many members would invite the parter of their gay child to dinner?   I probably would allow that.  If my kid was in the porn business, I would probably let another friend who is in the business over for dinner.  The sin is on their heads, not mine.  That gesture would not be a validation of their decisions or behavior.

How many members would allow the spouse of their LGBT child to spend the night at their house?   Probably would allow it.  Same reasons if I had a kid in the porn business for the same reasons above.

How many members would want the spouse of a LGBT child included in family photos?   Probably would.  If my son had a couple of of wives, they could be in the family photo also.    If he was living with a girlfriend, she can be in the family photo if he wants her to be there.

How many members would include that couple to all family activities?.  Obviously it can't be to all family activities if a family activity is to the temple.  However I would include such a child as I would include my kid if he was living with his girlfriend.  Once again, sin is on their head.  Allowing that does not mean I accept their choices or lifestyle. 

Overall, I have my standards.  A responsibility of a parent is to teach their kids right and wrong.  Once their kids become adults, they have the right to live their own lives and they are accountable for their decisions. The parents have a responsibility to love them.  Just as Lehi loved Laman and Lemual. 

You can include me as among those members who would deem it odd (and misguided) that other members would choose to make an analogy between my LGBT family member and a Nazi and someone in the porn industry.