One in five young adult mormons self-identify as gay/Lesbian/Bisexual

[Calm]

There has been a major update. I am out of it and messing stuff up so leaving it minimal, so please read link on why this study has issues:

Quote

That said, it is unlikely that the rates of sexual diversity are as high as indicated below for Gen Z and millennial Latter-day Saints. Our estimate is that they may be around 7 to 9 percentage points lower than indicated in the Nationscape data reported.

 

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/06/21/jana-riess-there-are-more/

so 1 in 5 is 20% and 7-10% would make that 10-13%, or almost half what they originally claimed. 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Calm

[Bede]

On 6/21/2021 at 5:26 PM, The Nehor said:

I associate a lot with (and belong to) a demographic that has a statistically high incidence of people self-identifying as bisexual.

Roofing professionals?

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/25/2021 at 3:08 PM, Calm said:

There has been a major update. I am out of it and messing stuff up so leaving it minimal, so please read link on why this study has issues:

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/06/21/jana-riess-there-are-more/

so 1 in 5 is 20% and 7-10% would make that 10-13%, or almost half what they originally claimed. 

Hence, the questions I asked earlier in the thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/25/2021 at 3:08 PM, Calm said:

There has been a major update. I am out of it and messing stuff up so leaving it minimal, so please read link on why this study has issues:

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/06/21/jana-riess-there-are-more/

so 1 in 5 is 20% and 7-10% would make that 10-13%, or almost half what they originally claimed. 

There is far less shock and awe — and my hunch is that’s what the study’s authors were going for — associated with 1 in 10 than with 1 in 5. And 10 percent is far closer to the traditionally  assumed proportion of non-heterosexuals in the adult population at large — which would make this study scarcely remarkable. 
 

I tend not to trust it if it was that far out of whack to begin with. I won’t be citing it anytime soon. 

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Bede said:

Roofing professionals?

People with ADHD. No idea which leads to the other. I would guess ADHD is the cause. When you have a need for excitement or something interesting novel sexual experiences are an obvious route.

[california boy]

On 6/21/2021 at 7:44 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

In the West, such voices have been with us since the Sexual Revolution, but dressing the message up as compassionate, welcoming, and loving is a novelty that has real potential for damage. I shared my mate's recent experiences specifically to indicate one way that this can play out. In the meantime, I fully expect to see the trends identified in the OP to continue. I hope that Calm is right and that this is one way to eventually get back to reality on this matter.

I have been thinking about this survey, and finally gotten around to listening to the pod cast that someone linked.  The pod cast is an interview with one of the people that was. involved in running the survey.  There are a few things that he said that I would like your reaction to.

1} Did you listen to the podcast?

2} Questions were asked about how the Church deals with 25% of it's youth not identifying as straight.  How do you think the Church should be addressing those youth?  Do you think an approach of our way or the highway approach should continue?  Either get married to someone of the opposite sex, or never have a relationship with another person.  If you can't accept that, then there really isn't a place for you in the Church.

3}How do you think the Church leaders should respond to 25% of the youth not fitting into the accepted mold?  I wasn't sure what you met by this statement you made.

 

Quote

 

If we teach these youth and young adults the truth -- historically, anthropologically, and linguistically grounded -- they'll be fine since it meshes perfectly with our doctrines

 

What teaching are you suggesting that would be different than what has already been taught?  Because clearly what has been taught over the past 15 years is excellerating the issue.

4}. How do you THINK Church leaders will react to this information?

 

I realize I am using a quote from Hamba, but I would really be interested in anyone's point of view on these questions.  

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

2} Questions were asked about how the Church deals with 25% of it's youth not identifying as straight.  How do you think the Church should be addressing those youth?  Do you think an approach of our way or the highway approach should continue?  Either get married to someone of the opposite sex, or never have a relationship with another person.  If you can't accept that, then there really isn't a place for you in the Church.

3}How do you think the Church leaders should respond to 25% of the youth not fitting into the accepted mold?  

It is just one study or survey.  I would not put a lot of stock on it unless other independent studies validate the same thing.  As to what the Church should do.  I say it should not do anything.  The laws of God do no change regardless of how many desire a change or what year it is.  The scriptures say that those who inherit the telestial kingdom number as the sands of the sea.  So I am sure the church leadership that a huge amount of people both in and out of the church are not going to make it. 

There is a place for anyone in the church for those who desire what the church offers them that no other church or organization can.   That is the prepare those individuals who want to inherit the Celestial Kingdom.  Those who want a lesser kingdom can inherit those without being members of the church.  The church has to prepare its people to before God and successfully pass judgement. For the church to accept popular practices and views that will lead to failure at the judgement bar of God would be be a great sin against the church and its leaders.

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

There is nothing new under the sun.

“Mosiah: 26:1 Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did not believe the tradition of their fathers.
2 They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ.
3 And now because of their unbelief they could not understand the word of God; and their hearts were hardened.
4 And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church. And they were a separate people as to their faith, and remained so ever after, even in their carnal and sinful state; for they would not call upon the Lord their God.
5 And now in the reign of Mosiah they were not half so numerous as the people of God; but because of the dissensions among the brethren they became more numerous.
6 For it came to pass that they did deceive many with their flattering words, who were in the church, and did cause them to commit many sins; therefore it became expedient that those who committed sin, that were in the church, should be admonished by the church.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is just one study or survey.  I would not put a lot of stock on it unless other independent studies validate the same thing.  As to what the Church should do.  I say it should not do anything.  The laws of God do no change regardless of how many desire a change or what year it is.  The scriptures say that those who inherit the telestial kingdom number as the sands of the sea.  So I am sure the church leadership that a huge amount of people both in and out of the church are not going to make it. 

There is a place for anyone in the church for those who desire what the church offers them that no other church or organization can.   That is the prepare those individuals who want to inherit the Celestial Kingdom.  Those who want a lesser kingdom can inherit those without being members of the church.  The church has to prepare its people to before God and successfully pass judgement. For the church to accept popular practices and views that will lead to failure at the judgement bar of God would be be a great sin against the church and its leaders.

 

 

Good parents respond and change when change is needed. Likewise, the church has a doctrine of continual revelation. It would be a shame if seeking revelation on this topic was replaced with doing nothing.

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It would be a shame if seeking revelation on this topic was replaced with doing nothing.

How would you differentiate between them seeking revelation and getting told to not make a change, as opposed to them just doing nothing?

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Good parents respond and change when change is needed.

It seems to me that this proposition is flawed at the outset because it rests on the assumption of what, I would think, it is intended to prove: "Surely, if God were more enlightened on the topic of (e.g., but not limited to) gay marriage, He would think more as I do."  As I first said quite some time ago, God doesn't care if we think He's sexist, racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, prejudiced, or backward in any other way. Right is right even if nobody believes it or does it, and wrong is wrong even if everybody believes it or does it. 

Regarding human understanding of the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on gay marriage (or, for that matter, on anything else), cf. Isaiah 55:8-9.  Indeed, despite the overwhelming number of people who deem themselves qualified to advise the Lord of the Universe, He assures us, "I am able to do mine own work."  2 Nephi 27:20.

 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Likewise, the church has a doctrine of continual revelation.

It does, but good things rarely happen when, once the Lord tells His servants something, they weary Him with continuing inquiries on the same topic hoping that He will change His mind.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It would be a shame if seeking revelation on this topic was replaced with doing nothing.

What if one already has been received?

 

[Meadowchik]

42 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

How would you differentiate between them seeking revelation and getting told to not make a change, as opposed to them just doing nothing?

I think it's pretty clear. Just doing nothing would mean not bothering to seek revelation on it. Getting told not to make a change would come after.

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It seems to me that this proposition is flawed at the outset because it rests on the assumption of what, I would think, it is intended to prove: "Surely, if God were more enlightened on the topic of (e.g., but not limited to) gay marriage, He would think more as I do." 

 

Not really. In fact, the assumption I responded to is that the church shouldn't do anything. And that would be more in line with assuming one's opinion is already correct. On the other hand, always being open to more knowledge and seeking it works from the assumption that one's opinion and even deeply held beliefs might not be correct.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is just one study or survey.  I would not put a lot of stock on it unless other independent studies validate the same thing.  As to what the Church should do.  I say it should not do anything.  The laws of God do no change regardless of how many desire a change or what year it is.  The scriptures say that those who inherit the telestial kingdom number as the sands of the sea.  So I am sure the church leadership that a huge amount of people both in and out of the church are not going to make it. 

There is a place for anyone in the church for those who desire what the church offers them that no other church or organization can.   That is the prepare those individuals who want to inherit the Celestial Kingdom.  Those who want a lesser kingdom can inherit those without being members of the church.  The church has to prepare its people to before God and successfully pass judgement. For the church to accept popular practices and views that will lead to failure at the judgement bar of God would be be a great sin against the church and its leaders.

I think you are mostly right.  Thank you for sharing your opinion.   I also expect the Church to do nothing.  It is a very conservative church that moves slowly to make any kind of change.  But you are wrong about one thing.  There isn't a place for anyone in the Church without severely limiting their experience and happiness that is an integral part of our earth life experience.  I suspect most of these youth (whatever the number is) will find a happy and productive life outside the Church and hopefully will seek a personal relationship with God.. And maybe that is for the best.  Like me, it has taught them to be more reliant on their own personal relationship with God than men who are flawed and claim to speak for God.  

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

How would you differentiate between them seeking revelation and getting told to not make a change, as opposed to them just doing nothing?

 

I can't speak for @Meadowchik, but I will throw this out. This weekend, I encountered for the first time Jim Bennett and his reply to the CES letter (link https://canonizer.com/files/reply.pdf see about page 210).  As part of his response to the blacks and the priesthood issue, Bennett draws the parallel between the pre-'78 Church and ancient Israel wanting a king. Bennett says that the priesthood and temple ban was established because the Church and its leaders (as a result of the prevailing beliefs everywhere in 19th century America) wanted a segregated church, and that later leaders/members were unwilling (probably unknowingly) to accept a fully desegregated church. It's hard to say for sure if all of that is true. However, it seems to me that this kind of "accommadationism" is common enough that part of differentiating between seeking revelation and getting told "no" is to somehow demonstrate that they/you/we are fully and truly open and able to accept both a yes or a no answer. I don't know what that looks like, but it seems like an important part of really asking the question.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Good parents respond and change when change is needed. Likewise, the church has a doctrine of continual revelation. It would be a shame if seeking revelation on this topic was replaced with doing nothing.

I submit you don’t know that they haven’t sought revelation on this topic.  
 

And from your past posts, my inference is that you don’t believe they receive revelation anyway — on this or any other topic. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Likewise, the church has a doctrine of continual revelation.

It does, but good things rarely happen when, once the Lord tells His servants something, they weary Him with continuing inquiries on the same topic hoping that He will change His mind.

An astute observation. 
 

Another illuminating example is ancient Israel continuing to clamor for a king after they had been told no. 
 

I tend to think, though, that our leaders today are wise enough to recognize when they already have received the will of the Lord — and to resist a clamor for them to try to get Him to change His mind. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I can't speak for @Meadowchik, but I will throw this out. This weekend, I encountered for the first time Jim Bennett and his reply to the CES letter (link https://canonizer.com/files/reply.pdf see about page 210).  As part of his response to the blacks and the priesthood issue, Bennett draws the parallel between the pre-'78 Church and ancient Israel wanting a king. Bennett says that the priesthood and temple ban was established because the Church and its leaders (as a result of the prevailing beliefs everywhere in 19th century America) wanted a segregated church, and that later leaders/members were unwilling (probably unknowingly) to accept a fully desegregated church. It's hard to say for sure if all of that is true. However, it seems to me that this kind of "accommadationism" is common enough that part of differentiating between seeking revelation and getting told "no" is to somehow demonstrate that they/you/we are fully and truly open and able to accept both a yes or a no answer. I don't know what that looks like, but it seems like an important part of really asking the question.

I think there’s a vital distinction to be made here. President Spencer W. Kimball, by his own account, continued to petition the Lord not because he had been told no and was trying to change the Lord’s mind, but because an answer had in fact not yet been received one way or the other. In fact, President Kimball verily believed the day would come when such a revelation WOULD BE received, and it was up to him to petition the Lord for an answer as to whether that day had arrived yet. 
 

Furthermore, President Kimball said he was fully prepared and willing to accept an answer of “no”. from the Lord and would have withstood the world, if need be, to uphold the word and will of the Lord. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Fair Dinkum]

On 6/25/2021 at 3:08 PM, Calm said:

There has been a major update. I am out of it and messing stuff up so leaving it minimal, so please read link on why this study has issues:

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/06/21/jana-riess-there-are-more/

so 1 in 5 is 20% and 7-10% would make that 10-13%, or almost half what they originally claimed. 

No that is not what the revised article said.  It stated that

Quote

Our estimate is that they may be around 7 to 9 percentage points lower than indicated in the Nationscape data reported.

Given that the original Nationscape data reported that 

Quote

23% of Gen Zers who identify as LDS say they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or other

We should now view the data as actually 7 to 9 percentage points lower than that original 23% or  at 16% to 14%

[JustAnAustralian]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think it's pretty clear. Just doing nothing would mean not bothering to seek revelation on it. Getting told not to make a change would come after.

Yes, but how do YOU as in Meadowchik, know whether the brethren are following revelation by not making changes, or are just not acting?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Yes, but how do YOU as in Meadowchik, know whether the brethren are following revelation by not making changes, or are just not acting?

Are you aware Meadowchick has stepped away from the Church and is now atheist? 

[JustAnAustralian]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you aware Meadowchick has stepped away from the Church and is now atheist? 

Yes. But when there is a comparison like "It would be a shame if seeking revelation on this topic was replaced with doing nothing.", I want the person making the comparison to say how someone looking only at the outcome would tell the difference between the church leaders:

• Asking for revelation
• Getting told not to make a change
• Not making a change

and

• Not asking for revelation
• Not making a change

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Yes. But when there is a comparison like "It would be a shame if seeking revelation on this topic was replaced with doing nothing.", I want the person making the comparison to say how someone looking only at the outcome would tell the difference between the church leaders ...

Simple. If Church leaders do what the person wants, then obviously they sought 'revelation' ... even in the person in question doesn't actually believe in revelation.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[JAHS]

Interesting letter claiming the data is fraudulent

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/6/28/22554177/the-trouble-with-claiming-1-in-5-latter-day-saints-is-non-heterosexual-mormon-lgbtq

"The study turned out to be fraudulent from the beginning. Attitudes change, yes, but as anyone who has knocked door-to-door will tell you, that almost never happens so quickly and easily. The study — which would have cost upwards of a million dollars in real life — never happened, with the UCLA graduate student actually drawing the numbers from an existing data set and convincing a respected researcher, Donald Green, that they reflected thousands of knocked doors. Green later said, “I am deeply embarrassed that I did not suspect and discover the fabrication of the survey data.”

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 6/28/2021 at 8:58 AM, california boy said:

1} Did you listen to the podcast?

No, I don't listen to podcasts as a matter of principle.

Quote

 2} ... Do you think an approach of our way or the highway approach should continue?  Either get married to someone of the opposite sex, or never have a relationship with another person.  If you can't accept that, then there really isn't a place for you in the Church.

I'm not certain, but I think you're asking if the Church should stop teaching basic Christian sexual mores, and my answer to that question (if I'm correct) is no. But as a member of the Church who has never married anyone of any sex, I have grown genuinely sick and weary of how you and others always frame this question: If there is 'no place' in the Church for people who aren't married to the opposite sex, then there is no place for me and millions of other members like me, and that's pure BS. Seriously, I'm sick of it to the point of frustration or anger or something I'd prefer not to experience. I know you think this line helps you score points or something, but it's simultaneously absurd and deeply offensive. Please stop pretending you get to speak for me.

Quote

3} ... I wasn't sure what you met by this statement you made. What teaching are you suggesting that would be different than what has already been taught?

We need to teach the truth. I know I've posted links before to very accessible digests of what we know academically, but it's clear you've never actually read or processed any of them, so let me do it again with some snippets and then beg you to read the rest for yourself.

From a book review published by OutHistory:

Quote

Before that point [the late 1860s], Western culture did not include the concept we now call “sexual orientation” or “sexual identity.” Sexual desires were things anyone could experience, whether they were appropriate or inappropriate, sinful or virtuous. Those who indulged their desires had an obligation to conduct their sex lives properly and morally, but one could fail at this, as well as succeed, even if one’s sex partner were of a different biological sex. Same-sex sexual acts were often prejudicially punished, but there was not a general sense that those who engaged in them were of a particular “type” or shared a particular “identity.” Anyone could have sex that was sinful, immoral, or illegal ...

This invisibility, where assumptions about heterosexuality are concerned, becomes glaring when we look critically at biomedical science’s attempts to uncover biological origins for sexual orientation. Scientists have looked for a physical origin for homosexuality for over a hundred years, but found none. But no such origin has ever been sought where heterosexuality is concerned. Scientifically speaking, this is indefensible – if one sexual orientation demands a biological basis, so do any others -- a fact that sheds enormous light on the extent to which our presumptions about sexual orientation bias our thinking.

And here's the introduction to the BBC's 'The Invention of "Heterosexuality"':

Quote

The 1901 Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defined heterosexuality as an “abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex.” More than two decades later, in 1923, Merriam Webster’s dictionary similarly defined it as “morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex.” It wasn’t until 1934 that heterosexuality was graced with the meaning we’re familiar with today: “manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality.”

Whenever I tell this to people, they respond with dramatic incredulity. That can’t be right! Well, it certainly doesn’t feel right. It feels as if heterosexuality has always “just been there.”

A few years ago, there began circulating a “man on the street” video, in which the creator asked people if they thought homosexuals were born with their sexual orientations. Responses were varied, with most saying something like, “It’s a combination of nature and nurture.” The interviewer then asked a follow-up question, which was crucial to the experiment: “When did you choose to be straight?” Most were taken back, confessing, rather sheepishly, never to have thought about it. Feeling that their prejudices had been exposed, they ended up swiftly conceding the videographer’s obvious point: gay people were born gay just like straight people were born straight.

The video’s takeaway seemed to suggest that all of our sexualities are “just there”; that we don’t need an explanation for homosexuality just as we don’t need one for heterosexuality. It seems not to have occurred to those who made the video, or the millions who shared it, that we actually need an explanation for both.

There’s been a lot of good work, both scholarly and popular, on the social construction of homosexual desire and identity. As a result, few would bat an eye when there’s talk of “the rise of the homosexual” – indeed, most of us have learned that homosexual identity did come into existence at a specific point in human history. What we’re not taught, though, is that a similar phenomenon brought heterosexuality into its existence.

There are many reasons for this educational omission, including religious bias and other types of homophobia. But the biggest reason we don’t interrogate heterosexuality’s origins is probably because it seems so, well, natural. Normal. No need to question something that’s “just there.”

But heterosexuality has not always “just been there.” And there’s no reason to imagine it will always be.

Significantly, the breakdown of historically novel (fixed, gendered) sexual identities is happening everywhere in large part because they are so unnatural that they can't be sustained. From the same analysis above comes the following: 'a recent UK poll found that fewer than half of those aged 18-24 identify as “100% heterosexual"'. And to build on something I tried to indicate earlier regarding the false assumptions present in the very title of this thread: 'That isn’t to suggest a majority of those young respondents regularly practise bisexuality or homosexuality'. This is simply a return to something more normative historically.

And I know what I'm talking about. I completed my PhD in history at a university whose postgraduate history program at the time was ranked fifth globally. After completing, I was offered a position at the university in the same college I had belonged to as a student, comprised of historians, anthropologists, and linguists. What is expressed in this book review and this analysis is everyday stuff for every single academic I ever studied with or worked alongside. It's not controversial; it's consensus.

Significantly, our doctrines align perfectly with the academic consensus of historians, anthropologists and linguists -- as do prophetic statements such as when Elder Bednar said, somewhat infamously, 'There are no homosexual members of the Church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior'.

By the way, if this statement is true, then that means that there are also no heterosexual members of the Church, and that is definitely something that we can start teaching far, far better!

I have previously mentioned on this forum that I was repeatedly told in the MTC that if I didn't look on women with lust, then I wasn't a 'real man' (always followed up by the statement that if I looked twice, then I wasn't a real Saint). This is solid BS, and I knew it at the time, but I worried then and still worry now how many young men have been totally screwed up by messages like that, which aren't supported in any way by our doctrines.

A few years ago, we had a missionary in our ward who, during a service project, 'confessed' to me that he wasn't attracted to women. He was worried, of course, that this meant he was gay. I actually laughed out loud, assured him that he was completely normal, explained to him that, for example, my father had never been attracted to women either, and reminded him that someday he might find himself attracted in some way to a woman but that he didn't need to fret if that didn't or until that did happen. He has been happily married for the past two years or so. Without hearing the truth, who knows where he would have ended up!

I also have a good mate and former housemate, Church member, who was so sexualised growing up that he has repeatedly run afoul of the law of chastity with the opposite sex. He has likewise benefited from hearing the truth and has repeatedly thanked me for telling it to him because it is the only thing that has allowed him to productively work backwards through his life and understand how he got here, and that gives him the tools to make changes that would otherwise be outside his reach.

Remember that heterosexuality was originally understood as an 'abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex'. As the rest of the Western world normalised this concept and developed an intricate cultural and institutional web for inculcating it, far too many in the Church followed along, but it needs to stop. Until that happens, we are essentially tossing every young person who doesn't find him- or herself consumed with lust for the opposite sex as a class into a hole that is very difficult to climb out of.

Quote

4}. How do you THINK Church leaders will react to this information?

No clue. They face an interesting balancing act. On the one hand, they've made it very clear in the past that they understand that fixed, gendered sexual identities are novel social constructs, so they might see this information as opening up potential space for course correction. At the same time, people who share your views raise hell and howl in angry protest anytime Church leaders try to speak truth on these matters -- just consider the response to Elder Bednar's words! -- so they have to tread carefully. I wish them the best! Thankfully, I trust they have access to divine aid as they tiptoe through this and other minefields.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan