All-in LGTBQ+ LDS

[Nofear]

A very interesting read from the Inclusion Advisor at BYU who interacts with "hundreds of different people who are navigating their own experiences with same-sex attraction (SSA), gender dysphoria, or who identify as LGBTQIA+."
https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/why-all-in-lgbtq-ssa-saints-are-so-reluctant-to-speak-up/

The basic question being asked (and the author provides some ideas) is why so few who choose to live the gospel are reluctant to speak out. A study reports many (about half) report "no or only mild psychological distress". Probably not the author's anecdotal experience given the position.

Anyway, thoughts, criticisms, support, etc?

Edited March 23, 2022 by Nofear

[CA Steve]

39 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The basic question being asked (and the author provides some ideas) is why so few who choose to live the gospel are reluctant to speak out

I think you meant: "why are those who choose to live the gospel reluctant to speak out?"

[SwedishLDS]

 .

Edited March 23, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[SwedishLDS]

Quote

I think you meant: "why are those who choose to live the gospel reluctant to speak out?"

Well said.

 

I mean it varies somewhat depending on L, G, B, T, etc as for example in the church we definitely dont wont people to go through a sex change operation. I would say homosexuality is somewhat out, I know people, and there are also celebrities like Elder Christoffersens brother (https://www.deseret.com/2017/9/13/20619341/gay-brother-of-mormon-apostle-shares-his-spiritual-journey) and David Archileta and some others. I am not trying to diminish their struggles though or say it is super common.

but if you go public you will likely have to deal with people saying somewhat insensitive things by mistake (or otherwise) and people that encourage you to leave the church for being homophobic at some point. Basically the culture war and people rambling on you.

Doctrinally, there is nothing sinful about having LGBT feelings but we teach people to not have sexual relations outside of man-woman marriage, we have also been taught gender is eternal by President Oaks (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2018/11/saturday-morning-session/truth-and-the-plan?lang=eng) and of course some struggle with these doctrines.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

A very interesting read from the Inclusion Advisor at BYU who interacts with "hundreds of different people who are navigating their own experiences with same-sex attraction (SSA), gender dysphoria, or who identify as LGBTQIA+."
https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/why-all-in-lgbtq-ssa-saints-are-so-reluctant-to-speak-up/

The basic question being asked (and the author provides some ideas) is why so few who choose to live the gospel are reluctant to speak out. A study reports many (about half) report "no or only mild psychological distress". Probably not the author's anecdotal experience given the position.

Anyway, thoughts, criticisms, support, etc?

Adding to the list of reasons, I think there is the large influence of personality to consider (Meyers-Briggs), and also how strongly one feels about their sexuality and sexuality in general, as there is a spectrum for what shows up in terms of personal makeup, thought and feeling, etc.

Edited March 23, 2022 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

.................

Doctrinally, there is nothing sinful about having LGBT feelings but we teach people to not have sexual relations outside of man-woman marriage, we have also been taught gender is eternal by President Oaks (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2018/11/saturday-morning-session/truth-and-the-plan?lang=eng) and of course some struggle with these doctrines.  

People talk a lot about the man-woman relationship at the very time in which fewer people are having any kind of relationship, a time in which people are not getting married and not even living together.  Are pious Latter-day Saints, regardless of gender preference, more and more living lives of celibacy?  Is this the more important general problem which gets ignored in all the hullaballoo over LGBTQ?

EDTA: We are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[SwedishLDS]

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

People talk a lot about the man-woman relationship at the very time in which fewer people are having any kind of relationship, a time in which people are not getting married and not even living together.  Are pious Latter-day Saints, regardless of gender preference, more and more living lives of celibacy?  Is this the more important general problem which gets ignored in all the hullaballoo over LGBTQ?

oh that is a huge problem for sure, dating marriage and everything has declined. I struggle with that as a member in a low member area. My dating life is quite barren, and I know members that have dated  outside the church because of that (not necessarily that big of a problem but it gives you an indication)

Edited March 23, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Robert F. Smith]

28 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

oh that is a huge problem for sure, dating marriage and everything has declined. I struggle with that as a member in a low member area. My dating life is quite barren, and I know members that have dated  outside the church because of that (not necessarily that big of a problem but it gives you an indication)

I am thinking of it as more of a general problem for all of society -- marriage rates and birth rates are rapidly declining in many developed societies.

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

A very interesting read from the Inclusion Advisor at BYU who interacts with "hundreds of different people who are navigating their own experiences with same-sex attraction (SSA), gender dysphoria, or who identify as LGBTQIA+."
https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/why-all-in-lgbtq-ssa-saints-are-so-reluctant-to-speak-up/

The basic question being asked (and the author provides some ideas) is why so few who choose to live the gospel are reluctant to speak out. A study reports many (about half) report "no or only mild psychological distress". Probably not the author's anecdotal experience given the position.

Anyway, thoughts, criticisms, support, etc?

Thanks for sharing, that is a really thought provoking article that caused me to feel many different mixed emotions reading it.   

I think that the author primarily wanted other all-in LGBTQ+ members to know that they are not alone and that other people are successfully navigating this journey too.  I think that is very helpful to those who may feel all alone in their journey. 

I left with mixed feelings after reading the article.  On the one hand, the author portrayed that in his experience there is a large host of happy, healthy, all-in LGBTQ+ individuals who feel safe and valued as gay members.  This caused me to feel hopeful.  On the other hand, he portrayed this idea that there is a long list of negative reasons that cause most of these individuals to remain in isolation and hiding because of how all sides (even those who are "allies") use them, abuse them, judge them and weaponize their experiences for different purposes.  He talked about the harm that is caused by the pity that is directed at these gay members.  Unfortunately, I think one unintended consequence of his article, for me, was that it caused me to feel...pity.    I left with those two conflicting feelings - hope and pity. 

He linked to a BYU report which showed that a "clear majority" of LGBTQ+ BYU students feel "safe and valued" at BYU, yet ironically he is trying to convince the public that gay all-in members don't feel safe or valued enough to open up.  So, what am I to believe?  Is the report or his narrative more accurate?  I have to say, I have a hard time interpreting the report in a way which suggests that these students feel safe and valued.   I wonder how these gay students interpreted the question "do you feel safe at BYU"?  They may have interpreted it to mean safe from attack or bodily harm.  Or, they may feel safe because they are in hiding and no one knows that they are gay.  But, according to the authors narrative, these members do not feel safe or valued as evidenced by the long list of reasons they are in hiding.  The BYU report does actually show that gay BYU students consistently ranked lower than straight BYU students in every measure with a disparity of 20%-30% difference in feeling safe, happy, valued, and being a part of BYU.  Keep in mind that according to this author, the vast majority of these students are in hiding.  I wonder how much lower those measures would drop once these students are identified as gay and active and  become exposed to all the negative experiences associated with being identified as gay and Latter-day Saint that the author outlined in 7 different and tragic ways. 

I think the author wants to portray the idea that there are lots and lots who are gay and active and in hiding, and that it is possible to do so long term.  I don't disagree that it is possible, but certainly would be curious to see actual numbers comparing what percentage of college students remain happy, healthy, safe, validated, and successfully navigate a life as an active and temple worthy gay Latter-day Saint into their late adult life.  The demographic he associates with are young, single, probably mostly freshly returned missionaries, and college students whose acquaintances are also young and single, etc.  What happens when all their friends and associates start getting married and they start losing social contacts in their late 20's early 30's, then in to their 40's, 50's. 60's and 70's.  How many decades before we start seeing the freshly returned missionary spirit wear off and loneliness start kicking in?  It is not terribly surprising to me that there are a lot of young freshly returned missionaries and  college students who associate with other singles their age who report being all-in and gay Latter-day Saints.  I would be more curious to see how many still exist in their 60's, 70's, and 80's.  Those are the voices that I would be really curious to hear from - their lived experience and self-reported feelings of happiness, well-being, safety, and feeling valued.  

So, again, I am left feeling conflicted an unsure as to what to believe.  Should I feel pity or hope?  Can I feel both?  I have never met a single old-gay active Latter-day Saint, but maybe they are all in hiding like their younger counter-parts.  I just don't know what to feel or believe on this issue. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

A very interesting read from the Inclusion Advisor at BYU who interacts with "hundreds of different people who are navigating their own experiences with same-sex attraction (SSA), gender dysphoria, or who identify as LGBTQIA+."
https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/why-all-in-lgbtq-ssa-saints-are-so-reluctant-to-speak-up/

The basic question being asked (and the author provides some ideas) is why so few who choose to live the gospel are reluctant to speak out. A study reports many (about half) report "no or only mild psychological distress". Probably not the author's anecdotal experience given the position.

Anyway, thoughts, criticisms, support, etc?

I wonder more about why someone who chooses to "live the gospel" AND identifies as LGBTQIA would speak out. If they do they are viewed as a pariah making a "hulabaloo" about their sxuality. Who was it that said there are no "gay LDS members"? Was it Bednar? I don't remember. The church isn't exactly welcoming or open minded or even kind to LGBTQ members, in my opinion. They would have a flag on their membership (or maybe an asterisk). They would be welcome at church only if they didn't appear gay in any way. They'd sure better not bring a date, or hold hands at church. I wonder if worthiness interviews would be different, perhaps a little more pointed and invasive. In other words, IMO it's hard to think of a good reason for LGBTQ individuals to out themselves to a community that won't accept them.

[Stormin' Mormon]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 They would have a flag on their membership (or maybe an asterisk). They would be welcome at church only if they didn't appear gay in any way. They'd sure better not bring a date, or hold hands at church. I wonder if worthiness interviews would be different, perhaps a little more pointed and invasive.

CFR for the first statement.  The others statements will vary (possibly widely) from congregation to congregation, but would certainly not be true church-wide. 

Anecdotal for sure, but when we had this discussion in my Gospel Doctrine class a few months back, I had one class member share the experiences of a gay cousin who attends a ward with their partner and both are welcomed, loved, and accepted. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder more about why someone who chooses to "live the gospel" AND identifies as LGBTQIA would speak out. If they do they are viewed as a pariah making a "hulabaloo" about their sxuality. Who was it that said there are no "gay LDS members"? Was it Bednar? I don't remember. The church isn't exactly welcoming or open minded or even kind to LGBTQ members, in my opinion. They would have a flag on their membership (or maybe an asterisk). They would be welcome at church only if they didn't appear gay in any way. They'd sure better not bring a date, or hold hands at church. I wonder if worthiness interviews would be different, perhaps a little more pointed and invasive. In other words, IMO it's hard to think of a good reason for LGBTQ individuals to out themselves to a community that won't accept them.

I don't know if you read the article, but he makes these exact points as to why they often choose to remain in hiding.  He makes a very good point that it is not as one sided as is often portrayed in these forums.  Once they come out, they experience patronization, pushback, weaponization, and gaslighting from not just members, but also from the LGBTQ+ community.  Both sides seem to mount against them.  I can't imagine! 

[LoudmouthMormon]

 

Quote

Some all-in LGBT+/SSA choose not to share their perspectives because of the messages they hear from other LGBT+/SSA people. If I could consolidate sentiments I sometimes hear from individuals who have chosen less-orthodox paths it would sound something like this:

“Oh, I remember when I was back in that all-in space. I was motivated by fear, shame, internalized homophobia/transphobia, and external expectations … I imagine these people are too. If they’re actually honest with themselves and educate themselves with some ‘unbiased’ research materials, they’ll inevitably come to the same conclusions I did. Life is so much better when you live authentically (the way I am). I’m mad at the Church for forcing them to live that way.”

Quote

When I hear from LGBT+ people traveling different paths than I am, I always appreciate it when they respond to my perspective with humility and openness—and refreshing to hear something like the following:

“You’re making different choices than I am, which is fine, though I am worried that you’re not going to find the same happiness that I’ve found on my path. You’ve probably had very different experiences than I have, hence the different decisions … but I assume you have well-considered reasons for making your choices. I’d like to learn more about your journey, not to simply try to convince you to change (or to find fault), but because I’m honestly curious. Maybe we’ll both learn something new and figure out ways to lighten each others’ load.”

 

I'm not surprised to learn the author hears so much of the first response, he's able to condense the common themes into a general set of statements.  I'm glad to learn the author hears enough of the second response, that he's able to do the same thing.

One would think that LGBT+ folks and their allies, who traditionally place such a high value on speaking personal truths, and believing and supporting others as they speak theirs, wouldn't end up in the first category of responses as often as they apparently do.

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

CFR for the first statement [They would have a flag on their membership (or maybe an asterisk)]

This may have changed (probably has, in my view), but I can confirm that asterisks / annotations were put on the records of gay members who had not been disciplined at least ten years ago. I know that firsthand, and was surprised when it happened because no discipline had taken place. Salt Lake would have to know about it, of course --- if a local leader handles it "in house," then nothing would happen.

Given the movement towards overtures to the gay community on the part of the Church, I would be surprised if this still happened in 2022. 

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am thinking of it as more of a general problem for all of society -- marriage rates and birth rates are rapidly declining in many developed societies.

 

By population collapse they mean the problems inherent in the societies we built if the population is stable.

I think that says more about the fragile nature of the society and less that everyone should have babies they cannot reasonably afford so the machine can keep going.

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, Nofear said:

A very interesting read from the Inclusion Advisor at BYU who interacts with "hundreds of different people who are navigating their own experiences with same-sex attraction (SSA), gender dysphoria, or who identify as LGBTQIA+."
https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/why-all-in-lgbtq-ssa-saints-are-so-reluctant-to-speak-up/

The basic question being asked (and the author provides some ideas) is why so few who choose to live the gospel are reluctant to speak out. A study reports many (about half) report "no or only mild psychological distress". Probably not the author's anecdotal experience given the position.

Anyway, thoughts, criticisms, support, etc?

Pretty sure we are dealing with the mother of all sampling biases in this story. Does the inclusion advisor at a school that boots people who act on non-heterosexual desires expect people to line up at the door to share their intention to do exactly that?

[sunstoned]

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Pretty sure we are dealing with the mother of all sampling biases in this story. Does the inclusion advisor at a school that boots people who act on non-heterosexual desires expect people to line up at the door to share their intention to do exactly that?

Good point!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Pretty sure we are dealing with the mother of all sampling biases in this story. Does the inclusion advisor at a school that boots people who act on non-heterosexual desires expect people to line up at the door to share their intention to do exactly that?

Are you referring to the study of religious schools?  That would be problematic imo.  https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-57738-005  The abstract does not say how the students were found or how they could say they were a representative sample.

Quote

One hundred and sixty sexual minority students from 15 Christian colleges and universities in which a staff member was affiliated with the Association for Christians in Student Development participated in the online survey. Results suggest that these campus settings are experienced differently by sexual minority students in terms of how they approach the relationship between their religious/spiritual identity and their sexual identity. Perhaps surprisingly, about half of this sample reported no or only mild psychological distress, and only 9.4% reported elevated distress. 

The author though as I read him is not making a claim that he is representing all LGBT+ students at BYU or church members, he is sharing the viewpoints of just those who have spoken to him and represented themselves as all-in and limiting conclusions to those.  They appear to have sought him out on their own initiative.

Quote

I’m focusing here on a few observations about one less acknowledged group to whom I have unique access….

I’ve talked to these Saints from all around the world, some as young as 13 and others in their 70s. Even though so many people have come out of the woodwork to share their personal stories with me, when it comes to invitations to share their perspectives with others through focus groups or articles for church publications, I’m receiving more and more polite refusals…

In fact, I’m privately hearing from more all-in Saints than ever before, even though I’m seeing their influence in public spaces less. 

 

 Now I see the possibility of someone being outed and reported in the past being careful or even lying when forced to deal with an “inclusion advisor”.  But do we know this is the circumstances of many or any he is discussing?  Or are these those who have sought him out?

I can see perhaps a problem with those he has known over time at BYU, perhaps at first they were “all-in” but by their last year or so, not so enthusiastic but worried about jeopardizing graduation if they are opened about their changed views.  

However, I have heard the same sort of reluctance in the past from a couple of older, all-in, temple married LGBT+ individuals whose opinions were that being private was the most common choice for other faithful, all in LGBT+ individuals they knew  (and very understandable when so many members still viewed LGBT+ as mentally disturbed or inherently sinful individuals or the subject was “Ew” to them for some reason), so I believe the reluctance to go public has always existed even when they could be held up as the perfect example by the Church or church members.  Whether or not it was actually a majority approach as believed by my acquaintances or reluctance has actually grown , I don’t know and don’t know how we could ever be sure anyway, but given my own reluctance to be open about certain aspects of myself just among my extended family that are currently subjects of public conflict these days (though nothing comparing to sexual orientation in consequence) and disconnecting myself from a few family members who seem obsessed with certain issues, I could understand why more introverted or private individuals might be becoming more private rather than less at this time even if it is more acceptable to be open about personal stuff nowadays.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Calm

[kimpearson]

I will jump in because I have familiarity with the author.  He has been a part of the North Star group since it's inception.  He is closely aligned with Ty Mansfield.  This group including the author have always had the stated purpose of supporting LGTBQ members who are trying to stay in the Church.  It's all they really focus on and the only LGTBQ people they serve are those willing to commit to being "all in".  North star has always tried to convey a story that there are large numbers of LGTBQ members who are all in.  Their problem is that they have no proof.  The North star group is dominated by those in mixed orientation marriages and while not officially pushed, many of its members are actively seeking mixed orientation relationships.   Most of the focus in on gay men like the author of the article.  Not many lesbians and even fewer transgender folks.  I would estimate that there are between 100 and 200 active participants in North star.  I am part of the North star parents group and it seems like more and more board members and participants in conferences are parents.  I have quoted these statistics before but if you consider that there are 6.5 million US church members and all recent studies indicate an occurrence of between 5% and 10% of those who identify as queer in the general population, then between 325,000 and 650,000 members are likely queer.  BYU itself appears to have between 3,000 and 6,000 students who identify as queer.  How many students does the author talk to in a week that are all in but afraid to come out? I would bet 1 or 2 but lets say 5 or 10.  Do the math.  School is in session about 40 weeks out of the year, that would be 200 to 400 at the very most.  This is in an environment where queer folks are under the pressure of the honor code to be all in if they want to graduate.  I have talked to thousands of queer members including those who are all in.  I would guess the all in queer members I personally know to be between 20 or 30 against the 4 or 5 thousand that aren't.  I have talked to several hundred queer members who attend church but have gay relationships that they keep quite about because they know they will be punished.  They attend because they truly love the gospel and wish they could be all in members.  I believe the author and North star know the numbers of all in queer members are infinitesimally small compared to the total number of queer members.  That is why the author makes no attempt to give any real data.  The main issue I have with the article is that I am already seeing it used as a tool by other members to point out to queer members and their families that their queer loved one should be able to be all in because so "many" other queer members are.

One other point to make.  Every all in queer member I know and have talked to has an incredible battle going on constantly in their mind.  Life is a very real challenge for them.  The one thing they each hold strongly too is a belief that they are doing what God wants and that will bring them happiness.  That is not happening in their lives currently in most cases so they really focus on the next life.  The very thought that true happiness and peace can be found in a gay marriage or changing gender in this life scares the crap out of them.  I will give them credit that they don't push this path on others but, as the author has written, they really want to believe that there are many more queer members just like themselves just to feel more comfortable with how they are choosing to live life.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

By population collapse they mean the problems inherent in the societies we built if the population is stable.

I think that says more about the fragile nature of the society and less that everyone should have babies they cannot reasonably afford so the machine can keep going.

Yes.  That's the point.  Why would someone be likely to get married and have children when saddled with huge debt and high housing prices?  Normal life becomes a luxury which ordinary people may not be able to afford.  Instead of stability, we get an upside-down pyramid.  In the USA we only keep ahead of ddom through immigration.  However, eventually even that will not help us.

[Nofear]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Pretty sure we are dealing with the mother of all sampling biases in this story. Does the inclusion advisor at a school that boots people who act on non-heterosexual desires expect people to line up at the door to share their intention to do exactly that?

As a follow up to Calm's reply, I'm pretty confident that the author is also aware of sampling bias. "Probably not the author's anecdotal experience given the position."  Indeed, the position would likely skew towards hearing more from people who were experiencing distress than those who were not. My impression was that he seems to know that -- and also that at some level that doesn't matter, that it isn't about statistics but ministering to the one.

[Buckeye]

I agree with Nehor, Pogi, and others that have already responded. At the risk of repeating some of their points, I believe the fundamental problem facing the author and those like him (SSA, celibate, practicing LDS who support the church's doctrine of marriage only between man+woman; I'll call this "Group A"), is not so much that they are in the in minority of members who identify as LGBT or having SSA (and they certainly are), but that when they speak up about their life experiences the church uses them to dismiss the life experiences of the majority of such members (LGBT, practicing LDS who believe that church doctrine should expand to include same-sex marriage; I'll call this "Group B"), and hence they get significant pushback from Group B and the friends/family of Group B. In short, when Group A speaks at church events its not just to say "I'm Jim and this is how I live my life" but for the church to say "all people who experience SSA or identify as LGBT should live as Jim and would be happier if they did so. Because Jim exists, Group B is wrong."

This situation is contrast to what I've seen with mothers working outside the home. In the 80s, after President Benson's conference addresses, it was pretty clear the church opposed mothers with children at home from working outside the home absent exceptional circumstances. Lots of women felt comfortable in RS telling of the blessings they received from staying at home. Over the years, many more mothers with children at home have begun to work outside the home for a variety of reasons (income, fulfillment, etc.) and the church's teachings have loosened significantly to the point that - at least in my ward and others I visit - many women are comfortable telling other sisters that they work. I've seen some hesitancy from mothers who choose to stay home to tell their stories too, but in general they usually do so long as the group dynamic is supportive of all women - i.e., they group agrees there's good reasons to work and there's good reasons to stay home, its a tough balance for all women, and we support all women in making their decisions. 

My recommendation to the author is this. If you want Group A to feel comfortable sharing their stories, you need to invite them to a situation where the lived experiences of both Group A and Group B are equally valued and supported. Unfortunately, that situation only currently exists outside of church-sponsored events. Where the church (or BYU) is involved, there can be no support for the Group B model. So long as that remains the case, and so long as the lived experiences of LGBT members of the church continues to show that marriage is good for them, Group A will continue to retreat in silence. I'm sorry to say, but that's what happens when your model fails to match up with "things as they really are." 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am thinking of it as more of a general problem for all of society -- marriage rates and birth rates are rapidly declining in many developed societies.

 

Which is all the more reason to support SSM. It leads to higher birth rates for society as a whole and overall improved conditions for many children. Yes, I know two men and two women cannot alone procreate. But as a society we've found great solutions around that. Take my cousin and her wife who adopted two great kids and are giving them a better life than they otherwise would (quite similar in fact to my sister and her husband who could not conceive and have adopt two great kids). Or consider my many gay co-workers who use surrogacy to bring into this world children who otherwise would not be here. 

It's the not the biggest cause, but surely one of the reasons for the decline in children raised in traditional homes is society's opposition to SSM and children being raised in SS homes.  Think of it as friendly fire. If your squad is sent to take an enemy hill and as soon as you leave the foxhole you come under fire from allies, which kills one of your group - that mistake doesn't just reduce your squad by one, it reduces the desire of the whole group to achieve the goal of taking the enemy's hill. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

Of course, if I'd read the comments to the Public Square article, I'd have seen that Tom Christofferson already made my point much better than I could have ...

 

Quote

 

I value Blake’s friendship as well as his example of one wholly committed to Christ. His explications of the seven challenges resonate with me, and track conversations I have also had with many LGBTQ+/SSA friends trying to follow their path of discipleship in the Church.

Especially as members of the Church who see themselves in some manner also within the broad SSA/LGBTQ+ community, we are urged not to tightly embrace identities beyond the preeminent one as children of heavenly parents, at least one rationale being that such identities may divide, rather than unite, us.

In pieces for this site, we have seen desires expressed that vaccination and masks not be allowed to divide us; rather, in addition to our own experiences and viewpoints, that we might be wiling to hear and accept as equally valid the insights of those who are concerned with future health complications or loss of self-direction, as well as the views of those who see divine influence and medical expertise in public health guidance.

In that spirit, I hope that “all in” won’t become a new divider among those who share many experiences, hopes and faith. Nor that some qualification of one’s degree of “all in-ness” should be performed by fellow congregants before deciding if a particular individual merits their inclusion, trust and engagement. In order to address the genuine feelings of not being seen or heard on the part of Saints who profess Christ, His Church and its doctrines, while also seeing themselves within the large orbit of LGBTQ+/SSA, can we also equally engage with those who share some but not all of those experiences and views and who still desire to follow Christ?

Can we simply allow that anyone who seeks to worship Christ with us deserves our willingness to share burdens, mourn and console? Will we expand the reach of our arms, our hearts and minds to imagine that all of those around us are doing the best they can in their circumstances?

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Which is all the more reason to support SSM. It leads to higher birth rates for society as a whole and overall improved conditions for many children. Yes, I know two men and two women cannot alone procreate. But as a society we've found great solutions around that. Take my cousin and her wife who adopted two great kids and are giving them a better life than they otherwise would (quite similar in fact to my sister and her husband who could not conceive and have adopt two great kids). Or consider my many gay co-workers who use surrogacy to bring into this world children who otherwise would not be here. 

It's the not the biggest cause, but surely one of the reasons for the decline in children raised in traditional homes is society's opposition to SSM and children being raised in SS homes.  Think of it as friendly fire. If your squad is sent to take an enemy hill and as soon as you leave the foxhole you come under fire from allies, which kills one of your group - that mistake doesn't just reduce your squad by one, it reduces the desire of the whole group to achieve the goal of taking the enemy's hill. 

Not sure that I follow all of your reasoning here, but, yes, there are people adopting and using surrogacy.  That will in no way make up for the galloping deficit in births in the developed world.