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

[Duncan]

54 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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.

There is a girl right now who is going to rehab, I grew up with her in the Church. Her dad, apparently, raped her over several years and she went to the Bishop and she couldn't afford therapy so she got nothing and the Dad got off scot free. You can't afford therapy which means mean you can't prove any of it therefore why both interviewing the Dad. To say the least her life hasn't been great, it's been a spiral downward, and she HATES religion, the Church, all of it and I don't blame her one iota. So, where the hand of God is in her life I have no idea, she doesn't seem to know but as of her post from yestarday she is going to rehab, is the Church to blame? Maybe the Bishop, maybe others, maybe not, the member Dad who had nothing done to him?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

There is a girl right now who is going to rehab, I grew up with her in the Church. Her dad, apparently, raped her over several years and she went to the Bishop and she couldn't afford therapy so she got nothing and the Dad got off scot free. You can't afford therapy which means mean you can't prove any of it therefore why both interviewing the Dad. To say the least her life hasn't been great, it's been a spiral downward, and she HATES religion, the Church, all of it and I don't blame her one iota. So, where the hand of God is in her life I have no idea, she doesn't seem to know but as of her post from yestarday she is going to rehab, is the Church to blame? Maybe the Bishop, maybe others, maybe not, the member Dad who had nothing done to him?

She should get legal help to fund her therapy. The bishop should have done something to help her. https://abusedinmormonism.com/

I know this will ruffle feathers but when the church was wrong here, or bishop, he was a representative of the church, shouldn't the church do the right thing? The church asks us to do the right thing.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

30 minutes ago, Duncan said:

There is a girl right now who is going to rehab, I grew up with her in the Church. Her dad, apparently, raped her over several years and she went to the Bishop and she couldn't afford therapy so she got nothing and the Dad got off scot free. You can't afford therapy which means mean you can't prove any of it therefore why both interviewing the Dad. To say the least her life hasn't been great, it's been a spiral downward, and she HATES religion, the Church, all of it and I don't blame her one iota. So, where the hand of God is in her life I have no idea, she doesn't seem to know but as of her post from yestarday she is going to rehab, is the Church to blame? Maybe the Bishop, maybe others, maybe not, the member Dad who had nothing done to him?

Frankly, I'm struggling to make sense of your post here.  I don't know enough about the case you're referencing to comment on it, other than to say that I'm sorry for what the young lady has been through.  I'm loathe to pass judgment on anyone involved because I don't know them.  Yes, certainly, one option is to blame God for the inhumanity that His children perpetrate on one another.  Another option is to conclude that He doesn't exist, because, surely, if He did exist, He would [stop X] or would [do Y].  It seems, depending on statutes of limitations and other issues, that this is a matter for the authorities, but even they cannot investigate something they don't know about, and yes, evidence is important.  (I say that as someone who, myself, is facing false accusations from a former coworker and attempting, in my own clumsy, inadequate way, to seek redress through the legal system.)

[Calm]

On 5/12/2020 at 5:35 PM, Calm said:

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....

A friend who has looked at it briefly pointed out there is an issue with using as a control group previous measures of the general US population when it is known that LGBT+ in general have significantly higher risks for PTSD*** and therefore much of the PSTD symptoms stats could be attributed to variables associated with orientation, etc (associated meaning correlated, not caused if that is clear).  
 

***https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/higher-risk-of-ptsd-for-gay-lesbian-bisexual-mostly-heterosexual-youth/

There was no actual control group included in the study (as in nonmembers or nonreligious), I am wondering if that should be a concern given it is using a new measure that has not been tested for reliability, etc.. Many questions for orthodoxy were specific to Mormonism and the Church (this would have hampered using a nonLDS control group, I wonder if there is a general Christian scale or if it would be possible to have orthodoxy scales match each individual’s original and primary faith), inclusions of more generic orthodoxy religious questions might have been useful, imo, to show consistency with other measures of spiritual trauma at least in the future if there are few, if any available now. 

Quote

Participants were required to be 1) a current or former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2) at least 18 years old, and 3) identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, asexual, or same-sex (same-gender) attracted.

https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/simmons_brian_w_201712_phd.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3bRot26OIyIBdl2TTU8QIf2Zk0B1mjrOXWyr8Zy1BT721V663y6Zaophs

Quote

Those who no longer currently attend LDS services were significantly more likely to meet criteria for PTSD diagnosis than those who currently attend at least monthly (83.8% vs. 64.6% respectively, χ2(1, n=274) = 13.09, p >.000). According to the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000), lifetime prevalence for PTSD in the U.S. adult population is approximately 8%, substantially lower than the likely prevalence for the study respondents.

Quote

We looked at a group of people who are at the cusp of adulthood and found much higher levels of PTSD in sexual orientation minorities compared with heterosexuals. We found that differences in PTSD by sexual orientation already exist by age 22. This is a critical point at which young adults are trying to finish college, establish careers, get jobs, maintain relationships, and establish a family,” said lead author Andrea Roberts, research associate in HSPH’s Department of Society, Human Development, and Health. Previous studies by Roberts and her colleagues identified more PTSD symptoms in a group of sexual minorities aged 40-60. Gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, “mostly heterosexuals,” and heterosexuals who have ever had a same-sex sex partner were found to be one-and-a-half to two times as likely to experience violent events, especially in childhood, than the general population and have double the risk of experiencing PTSD as a consequence.

A better control group would have been a general LGBT+ population, a non religious LGBT+ population, or even LGBT+ other religious population.
 

I personally would like to see it compared to both, making sure to also identify those brought up non religious and those brought up in different religions.  Might be a good idea to note religious changes as well to see if those have any significant impact for good or bad (I believe one study a few years ago demonstrating leaving a religious belief was traumatic, so that might need to be controlled for in these studies).

I also noted for the new spiritual trauma scale they were creating there was quite high incidence of “not applicable”, but they had to mark that as a “missing” answer as the Likert Scale did not have a n/a option.  They address this problem by eliminating 11 questions (imo these should have been eliminated before the actual study with his creating a new measure as the questions themselves can have an impact on responses to other questions), but included questions which had at least 50% response. I do not know if this is significant or not in the creation of a new measure. I know when my husband was creating a new measure for entrepreneurship, he did several trial studies ensuring the questions used for the actual study were relevant so as to avoid possible contamination from irrelevant variables. 
 

Quote

The STSS measures secondary traumatic stress through assessing PTSD symptoms associated with working with traumatized clients; however, for the current study wording was modified by the researcher to focus on PTSD symptomology associated with the respondents’ religious experiences. Given the retrospective nature of the current study, participants were asked to answer these items for any period in their life and not the most recent seven day

There is also an issue with current perspective possibly affecting accuracy of perception of past experiences. It is not unusual for memory to rewrite one’s own past experiences to have more in common one’s community, I am not sure how this could be controlled for given the ongoing changing culture both in general and within the Church, so one cannot assume incident rates the same at certain times of their lives for all ages. With older measures, one could compare to studies using the same measure with the same demographic group ten or twenty years ago to see if current perceptions differ from perceptions of experiences when younger, do experiences become viewed as more traumatic as one ages or does distance soften the feelings?

(I can see both happening in myself and others as we age.)

Edited May 19, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

One last concern is their concept of spiritual trauma, I need to review that section and their choices for defining such as well as what experiences are measured as traumatic. 
 

This is how trauma in general is currently defined, I believe (2015 article so assuming up to date):

Quote

Currently, Criterion A1 of the fourth edition of the DSM (DSM–IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) classifies traumatic events as those involving “actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of oneself or others” (p. 527). For an event to be considered traumatic, individuals must also meet Criterion A2, which states that “the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror” (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, pp. 427–428).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4477838/#!po=0.724638

From the study:

Quote

Johnson and VanVoderen (1991) were among the first to define spiritual abuse, describing it as mistreatment of a person in spiritual need by a religious leader that results in weakening, undermining, or decreasing the person’s spiritual empowerment. Ward (2011) similarly indicated spiritual abuse is a misuse of power and distortion of authority in a spiritual context that results to the detriment of the individual. Although Stone (2013) utilized a definition emphasizing the “pervasive psychological damage” (p. 324) caused by spiritual trauma, this definition identifies the source of the trauma as religious messages, beliefs, and experiences rather than religious leaders. Purcell (1998a, 1998b) defined spiritual abuse as the fear an individual experiences when they are brought to believe, either through overt statements or merely implication, that they will experience punishment and/or eternal torment in hell if they fail to live according to the standards required for admission to heaven. Like Stone’s (2013), this definition highlights religious messages or beliefs as the potential source of spiritual abuse, but directly connects this to teachings of judgment and punishment in the afterlife.
For the purposes of this study, spiritual trauma will be defined as intentional or unintentional psychological or emotional harm resulting from religious messages, beliefs, and experiences, thus combining components from both Purcell (1998a, 1998b) and Stone (2013

I am wondering how well they identify the level of harm, given intensity of fear, helplessness, and horror in previous measures app are to be high in order to qualify as traumatic. 
 

Differences between spiritual trauma and other forms as defined by the author:

Quote

Unlike other trauma that occurs in relationship to distinct events or incidents, spiritual trauma often involves long-term exposure – sometimes from birth – to messages and beliefs that can impair mental health (Stone, 2013). The severity of the trauma and resulting impairment is determined by intensity, age of onset, duration, and individual reaction (Purcell, 1998b). Individuals who are born into a religious environment might find those teachings and beliefs become influential as they develop views of themselves and the world. Additionally, unlike other forms of trauma where the individual may have the ability to potentially escape or defend themselves from the abuser, spiritual trauma includes concepts of God, “who has all knowledge all power, and is present everywhere” (Purcell, 1998a, p. 167), thus the spiritually abused may feel they have no escape. Purcell (1998a, 1998b) theorized spiritual trauma as a continuum from “from terroristic to zero abuse” (Purcell, 1998b, p. 227), with the extreme being identified as spiritual terrorism. Whereas spiritual trauma may result from unintentional messages, spiritual terrorism is obvious, “like a flashing neon sign” (p. 227), and emphasizes “a strong dose of eternal hell-fire and damnation” (p. 228). While the current study does not differentiate between intentional and unintentional trauma, this presents opportunities for future research in this area.

The spiritual trauma questions appear to be relatively generic, which makes me wish even more they included a nonMormon control group.  Hopefully future uses of the measure will do so.  The measure will be of very limited value if seen as a ‘Mormon’ test and I see no reason it need be viewed that way. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

One last concern is their concept of spiritual trauma, I need to review that section and their choices for defining such as well as what experiences are measured as traumatic. 
 

This is how trauma in general is currently defined, I believe (2015 article so assuming up to date):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4477838/#!po=0.724638

From the study:

I am wondering how well they identify the level of harm, given intensity of fear, helplessness, and horror in previous measures app are to be high in order to qualify as traumatic. 
 

Differences between spiritual trauma and other forms as defined by the author:

The spiritual trauma questions appear to be relatively generic, which makes me wish even more they included a nonMormon control group.  Hopefully future uses of the measure will do so.  The measure will be of very limited value if seen as a ‘Mormon’ test and I see no reason it need be viewed that way. 

I appreciate your post. Yet I am not sure that I agree about control groups.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

A friend who has looked at it briefly pointed out there is an issue with using as a control group previous measures of the general US population when it is known that LGBT+ in general have significantly higher risks for PTSD*** and therefore much of the PSTD symptoms stats could be attributed to variables associated with orientation, etc (associated meaning correlated, not caused if that is clear).  
 

***https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/higher-risk-of-ptsd-for-gay-lesbian-bisexual-mostly-heterosexual-youth/

There was no actual control group included in the study (as in nonmembers or nonreligious), I am wondering if that should be a concern given it is using a new measure that has not been tested for reliability, etc.. Many questions for orthodoxy were specific to Mormonism and the Church (this would have hampered using a nonLDS control group, I wonder if there is a general Christian scale or if it would be possible to have orthodoxy scales match each individual’s original and primary faith), inclusions of more generic orthodoxy religious questions might have been useful, imo, to show consistency with other measures of spiritual trauma at least in the future if there are few, if any available now. 

https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/simmons_brian_w_201712_phd.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3bRot26OIyIBdl2TTU8QIf2Zk0B1mjrOXWyr8Zy1BT721V663y6Zaophs

A better control group would have been a general LGBT+ population, a non religious LGBT+ population, or even LGBT+ other religious population.
 

I personally would like to see it compared to both, making sure to also identify those brought up non religious and those brought up in different religions.  Might be a good idea to note religious changes as well to see if those have any significant impact for good or bad (I believe one study a few years ago demonstrating leaving a religious belief was traumatic, so that might need to be controlled for in these studies).

I also noted for the new spiritual trauma scale they were creating there was quite high incidence of “not applicable”, but they had to mark that as a “missing” answer as the Likert Scale did not have a n/a option.  They address this problem by eliminating 11 questions (imo these should have been eliminated before the actual study with his creating a new measure as the questions themselves can have an impact on responses to other questions), but included questions which had at least 50% response. I do not know if this is significant or not in the creation of a new measure. I know when my husband was creating a new measure for entrepreneurship, he did several trial studies ensuring the questions used for the actual study were relevant so as to avoid possible contamination from irrelevant variables. 
 

There is also an issue with current perspective possibly affecting accuracy of perception of past experiences. It is not unusual for memory to rewrite one’s own past experiences to have more in common one’s community, I am not sure how this could be controlled for given the ongoing changing culture both in general and within the Church, so one cannot assume incident rates the same at certain times of their lives for all ages. With older measures, one could compare to studies using the same measure with the same demographic group ten or twenty years ago to see if current perceptions differ from perceptions of experiences when younger, do experiences become viewed as more traumatic as one ages or does distance soften the feelings?

(I can see both happening in myself and others as we age.)

I agree that memories are different than the experience. And even memories can change, and our perceptions of last experiences change as we age. Sometimes it can be wisdom or more knowledge that changes the perception, though. Perception can improve with age as we have more understanding.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I appreciate your post. Yet I am not sure that I agree about control groups.

Why not?  If LGBT+ in general have high rates of PSTD, then couldn’t much of the PSTD attributed to membership in the Church in this study be actually associated/correlated with orientation and gender identity?

Edited May 19, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

Just now, Calm said:

Why not?  If LGBT+ in general has high rates of PSTD, then couldn’t much of the PSTD attributed to membership in the Church be actually associated/correlated with orientation and gender identity?

That's a different question.

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's a different question.

But that is why I see the usefulness of a control group.  As in if a study claims to measure the effect of more orthodox/traditional religious practices on rates of infection and death due to co-vid, then does it make more sense to compare a religious group in Israel  to other Israelis (something I recently saw) or to the world in general?  Which will give us a more accurate context for comparison?  If you are trying to identify the impact of a variable, comparing to a highly similar group except for that variable works better than comparing to a group that differs from it in a wide range of variables...making it more difficult to isolate actual causes or correlations for differences in results.

If you are referring to my preference of using a control group for a new measure rather than relying on generic findings, there may be ways to deal with that without a control group within the study itself.  But having seen what goes into producing a reliable measure of group characteristics, it seems to me one of the more effective and efficient routes to establishing credibility of the instrument.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

But that is why I see the usefulness of a control group.  As in if a study claims to measure the effect of more orthodox/traditional religious practices on rates of infection and death due to co-vid, then does it make more sense to compare a religious group in Israel  to other Israelis (something I recently saw) or to the world in general?  Which will give us a more accurate context for comparison?  If you are trying to identify the impact of a variable, comparing to a highly similar group except for that variable works better than comparing to a group that differs from it in a wide range of variables...making it more difficult to isolate actual causes or correlations for differences in results.

If you are referring to my preference of using a control group for a new measure rather than relying on generic findings, there may be ways to deal with that without a control group within the study itself.  But having seen what goes into producing a reliable measure of group characteristics, it seems to me one of the more effective and efficient routes to establishing credibility of the instrument.

I don't doubt the potential insight from control groups. I'm just not sure that one can have one that represents a control group in the scientific sense. I think this is a pretty common problem in questions that involve long-term harm from a complex system on people. One might say that the pure control group for this would be latter-day saint theology that accepts these identities and relationships with full participation. That doesn't exist and is not reproducible. Maybe the closest thing is the Community of Christ, but it's still just an approximation.

[Calm]

Social science has to operate differently than the hard sciences. 


One doesn’t have to give up or make minimal effort as honestly appears to have been done in this study though just because a perfect control group isn’t available.

While my first love is physics, my degree is in psychology and my training for research was with those tools appropriate for such. Thus I am using control groups in that sense. Never perfect, but one aims to get as close as feasibly possible and I think it was inappropriate to use General US population when measures for general LGBT+ (Which is significantly closer to the group being studied in relevant attributes than the general population) are available even if one couldn’t feasibly use an actual control group within the study due to limits of time or funding.  

Edited May 19, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

One more thought...the dissertation describes the greater purpose is to study spiritual trauma in LGBT+ groups, not just within Mormonism.  Thus using a nonreligious group is appropriate for a control group for that study, more so than a general US population imo, though having a variety of theologies and practices to study to help focus in on what specific practices are likely to lead to harm or if it is more context driven would be useful in expanding the study. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Social science has to operate differently than the hard sciences. 


One doesn’t have to give up or make minimal effort as honestly appears to have been done in this study though just because a perfect control group isn’t available.

While my first love is physics, my degree is in psychology and my training for research was with those tools appropriate for such. Thus I am using control groups in that sense. Never perfect, but one aims to get as close as feasibly possible and I think it was inappropriate to use General US population when measures for general LGBT+ (Which is significantly closer to the group being studied in relevant attributes than the general population) are available even if one couldn’t feasibly use an actual control group within the study due to limits of time or funding.  

Good thoughts.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

One more thought...the dissertation describes the greater purpose is to study spiritual trauma in LGBT+ groups, not just within Mormonism.  Thus using a nonreligious group is appropriate for a control group for that study, more so than a general US population imo, though having a variety of theologies and practices to study to help focus in on what specific practices are likely to lead to harm or if it is more context driven would be useful in expanding the study. 

Why would it have to be a nonreligious group? How about just looking at--or at least also looking at--groups religious and areligious that are accepting of LGBT+ identities and relationships? I mean actual social groups, not groupings based on criteria which are may not represent any sort of community group at all.

[Calm]

I probably should have been sleeping, but I wanted to go into psych research myself rather than therapy, so even almost 40 years later I get sucked in.  I need to take a refresher course to get updated on what analytical tools can do these days as some concerns I find in various work may be relieved by more familiarity with the methodology.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why would it have to be a nonreligious group? How about just looking at--or at least also looking at--groups religious and areligious that are accepting of LGBT+ identities and relationships? I mean actual social groups, not groupings based on criteria which are may not represent any sort of community group at all.

Looking at the questions he chose for spiritual trauma, individuals are less likely to encounter these incidents in non religious groups, but one could search for religious groups that lack these aspects either culturally or in their teachings (ex.homosexuality is a sin, homosexuals are going to hell, homosexuals will not be able to have eternal families...I am dropping back to sleep after a phone call, so will check for actual questions and nuances in them later).***

What I would like to see is other forms of potential spiritual trauma included as well, outside of LGBT+ context.  This could help address whether or not there is something inherent in certain orientations that contributes to higher damage or if it is an approach that just happens to target LGBTs more that contributes to their higher numbers.

I am not sure that makes sense, 3/4s asleep.  Night.

***I feel like he should have made use of the nonapplicable to study the differences between those who experienced these events and those who had no experience of these events rather than just how damaging they felt these events were.  It seems to me he tossed away one of the most important parts of the questionnaire.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Calm

[The Unclean Deacon]

yes.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

yes.

CFR

[Daniel2]

I personally don't find the way the opening post poses the question to be helpful, namely, asking "Is LDS Theology responsible for LGBT suicides?," for a few reasons.  In my experience:

• Suicidal thoughts and feelings may be affected by a variety of factors in any given individual's life, thereby implicating any one thing as a or the 'cause' to be overly simplistic.
• The word "responsible" can be misinterpreted as an assignment of blame, instead of an intent to understand cause and effect.  In conversations with those who hold deeply-personal and meaningful religious beliefs as near and dear, implying 'responsibility' (or blame) instantly frames the conversation in such a way as to put religious adherents on the defensive to safeguard those beliefs they hold dear.
• What contributes to one person's suicidal thoughts and feelings may not contribute to another person's, but the vagueness of the question doesn't address that point; that which affects one person may not affect another.

Speaking for myself and myself alone, my own deeply-held personal beliefs, and misconceptions and misinterpretations, of some of the teachings of LDS theology contributed to my own suicidal thoughts and feelings during my 20's and 30's.  But that is not intended to be a judgement statement or a condemnation of LDS theology, and while I believe some aspects of LDS theology were accurate, there were others that I twisted to mean the exact opposite of what Mormonism truly espouses. And all were related to my own personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences of isolation, depression, and despair.  Each of these acted together, and none were individually 'responsible.'

Finally, I personally find discussions on this topic problematic, for there are those too-quick to politicize the issue on any and all sides.  Most often, the focus of understanding those who struggle with suicide is lost in a desire to advance or defend one's own agenda (again, speaking of my own experience with those on any and all sides). 

Rather than argue our respective positions on a public message board, we (as individuals) do best to help those struggling with suicidal thoughts to be with them, listen to their own individual stories, struggles, and beliefs, and in so doing demonstrate our willingness to love one another, "to mourn with those that mourn; comfort those that stand in need of comfort," to "strengthen the weak hands, And make firm the feeble knees."

Edited July 8, 2020 by Daniel2

[TheTanakas]

On 5/11/2020 at 2:34 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, there is a tendency for suicides to trend among youth.

I agree.   Stress and a general belief that they have no hope for the future outweigh any contribution of their
sexual orientation.

[The Unclean Deacon]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR

that's my opinion though it is based on listening to individuals who attempted suicides and said directly it was due to their feeling less than and broken within Mormonism due to its position and theology.  would you like those stories?  and if there are 10 stories of such is that not enough to say yes to "Is Latter-day Saint Theology Responsible for Lgbt+ Suicides?"

[Nofear]

While I didn't follow the discussion, in some ways the question is moot.

Those that oppose the Church's position need only say, "I really don't care about the statistics. The Church was harmful to my/this one [friend/child/parent/celebrity/etc.].," and then use the one anecdote to support their opposition. Never mind the repeated statistics and monthly anecdotes that show how the Church is a positive influence in those members lives. But, that one [friend/child/parent/celebrity/etc.]...

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

that's my opinion though it is based on listening to individuals who attempted suicides and said directly it was due to their feeling less than and broken within Mormonism due to its position and theology.  would you like those stories?  and if there are 10 stories of such is that not enough to say yes to "Is Latter-day Saint Theology Responsible for Lgbt+ Suicides?"

No thank you. I see value in anecdotes to provide insight with details, but they are not that great to determine actual trends.  The data currently available does not support the claim the theology is responsible according to the latest info coming from the state research on this (I will dig up a link later if I remember) though the final report hasn’t been issued yet. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Calm

[Daniel2]

24 minutes ago, Nofear said:

While I didn't follow the discussion, in some ways the question is moot.

Those that oppose the Church's position need only say, "I really don't care about the statistics. The Church was harmful to my/this one [friend/child/parent/celebrity/etc.].," and then use the one anecdote to support their opposition. Never mind the repeated statistics and monthly anecdotes that show how the Church is a positive influence in those members lives. But, that one [friend/child/parent/celebrity/etc.]...

Statistics and anecdotes both answer some questions...

But at the end of the day, regardless of what the statistics or anecdotes say, or even whether or not one believes in and supports LDS theology or any other worldview, it seems to me that most important thing that any of us can do is to 'minister to' (or 'care for', for those that prefer less religious imagery) "the one" (or, if there are more, "the ones") that is/are in our own life/path. 

I agree with your comment about 'moot'-ness... "Winning/losing the argument" posed by this thread isn't productive, at the end of the day. 

Listening to "the one" and meeting them where they are--trying to understand why they are struggling with suicide--is more important than whatever the statistics or anecdotes say, at least insofar as knowing how to help "the one" that's in our circle of influence..

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Daniel2