Jana Riess: Who is leaving the LDS Church? Eight key survey findings.

[Teancum]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm very glad that those quotes are from over a decade ago and that the church no longer teaches or implies such things.

Only a decade old means they are still pretty fresh.  And the man who said them is in the FP and next in line for president. And he is still strident about homosexuality. 

 

This one seems softer:

Quote

 

A top leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints laid out Saturday how the faith intends to navigate its delicate balance of firm opposition to same-sex relationships while being empathetic toward LGBTQ members.

People should love everyone no matter their difference, but the zeal to achieve that doesn't mean people should forget the faith's belief that God's laws prohibit gay marriage and prevents people in those relationships from receiving heavenly salvation, said Dallin H. Oaks, a member of a top church governing board called the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

 

"Our walk demands that we not compromise on commandments but show forth a full measure of understanding and love. Our walk must be considerate of children who are uncertain about their sexual orientation, but it discourages premature labeling because in most children such uncertainty decreases significantly over time," said Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court Justice. "Our walk opposes recruitment away from the covenant path, and it denies support to any who lead people away from the Lord. In all of this, we remember that God promises hope and ultimate joy and blessings for all who keep his commandments."  https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/mormon-leader-be-kind-gays-don-t-forget-god-s-n1063221

 

Quote

 

A bit more strident here:

 In his General Conference address, President Dallin H. Oaks reiterated the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on same-sex marriage and “gender confusion” as outlined in a 1995 “revelation.”

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was issued 23 years ago; its words still apply today, Oaks said in his remarks. 

“…some are troubled by some of our Church’s positions on marriage and children,” he said. “Our knowledge of God’s revealed plan of salvation requires us to oppose many of the current social and legal pressures to retreat from traditional marriage or to make changes that confuse or alter gender or homogenize the differences between men and women. We know that the relationships, identities, and functions of men and women are essential to accomplish God’s great plan.”

Oaks went on to talk about the opposition the Church faces when it stands firm on these social issues. 

“Our positions on these fundamentals frequently provoke opposition to the Church. We consider that inevitable. Opposition is part of the plan, and Satan’s (the Adversary’s) most strenuous opposition is directed at whatever is most important to God’s plan. He seeks to destroy God’s work,” he said. 

“He also seeks to confuse gender, to distort marriage, and to discourage childbearing—especially by parents who will raise children in truth,” Oaks said. 

His address drew both praise and criticism from members and estranged members of the Church, both on social media and elsewhere. 

“President Dallin H. Oaks and the rest of the first presidency of the Church continue to be a disappointment and uphold bigoted stances and actively engage in the continual trauma the Church causes many LGBTQ Youth,” wrote one Twitter user. 

“While Dallin H. Oaks could have done a better job showing the love that we do have for our LGBT members I do appreciate the firm stance he took on what is right and the truth of the Gospel,” wrote another. 

Oaks’ remarks come one year after he gave a similar address, also reaffirming the family proclamation. 

https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/oaks-doubles-down-on-lds-church-position-on-gay-marriage-gender-identity/

 

 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No it IS only something you believe is revelatory.  You have faith it is. You don't know. Do you?

I for one would love to read about how Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or any prophet of this dispensation prayed deeply about queer sexuality and got a revelation.

There have been talks given where apostles will declare the Lord’s ‘standard of marriage’ or talk about the Law of Chastity but when they bring up homosexuality they almost always make an appeal to the past and how it has always been this way or they appeal to worldly wisdom as to its dagners. In other words it rests on the traditions of our fathers or what other Christians are saying.

And the Church has largely followed the wisdom of the world on this issue. It was a minor sin for a long time when it wasn’t on anyone’s radar. There was no real gay panic. In the 50s and 60s there are interesting glimpses of kindness between gay people and clergy. Then the world panicked about gays and abortion and all the SEX everywhere and they all became hardline issues.

The apostles started talking about how vile and debased homosexuality was using the wisdom and reasoning of the world. President Kimball’s talks and writings on it look like any other Christian faiths and prescribes similar methods of “curing” it.

As some of the world starts to accept it the church tries to walk a middle road and finds it an increasingly untenable path and the middle road satisfies almost no one. It doesn’t appease those who want it soundly denounced and to believe that those who “struggle” with it are vile sinners. It also doesn’t appease people who grow up in the faith and grow tired of hiding. This kind of halfhearted attempt at reconciliation rings hollow when only a few decades before they were almost on the same level as murderers and the leaders insist often that nothing has changed.

[LoudmouthMormon]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Several times in this thread I have recognized that there are those who prefer the term Same Sex Attraction, but those are very much outliners.  I have stated that if that is their preference, then by all means do not use the term gay in addressing them.  If you are unsure how the person prefers to be addressed, I would always say, just ask them.  

Understood and agreed.  I'm not calling you out or calling foul, I'm presenting some ideas for your consideration.

 

Quote

What this thread has been about is the generally accepted terms the LGBT community prefers to use.

No, this thread is about an anonymous survey about who leaves and stays in the church.  It rapidly became a discussion of "the LGBT community".  Pretty much any discussion, anywhere, about LGBT issues quickly becomes a discussion of "the LGBT community".  

But the survey results point to a full 4% of members self-identifying as LGBT.  The survey polled "the Mormon corridor".  I googled up a statistic of roughly 6.8 million American LDS, most of whom live in the Mormon corridor.  Doing a little rough math, that equates to over a quarter million gay mormons.  How many do you think have never identified as LGBT?  How many do you think reject the community's various agreed upon things? 

I believe your claims about your experiences.  I believe you have met who you say you've met, and they've said what you claim.   The two folks I know paint a quite different picture.  They seek no acknowledgment of their sexuality of any kind.  The one I know best tells me not only does he reject the term gay, he prefers to not be thought about in those terms by anyone in the first place.  

 

Quote

Is all I am saying is be sensitive and respectful and not automatically assume you know more than gay members or the LGBT community what they prefer to be referred as.  I don't think that is a lot to ask for.  

I'm all about sensitivity and respect too.  Don't automatically assume you know more about the gay folk who want nothing to do with the LGBT community or it's ideals, than they do.  I don't think that is a lot to ask for either. 

 

Look, I'm naturally sarcastic and combative.  My screen name, avatar, and posting history has all earned me the deserved reputation as someone who likes to get into fights about stuff.  I'm not trying to fight here.  

Edited March 12, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I guess we can give up the old folklore about our bodies being divine gifts then.

While your inferred conclusion is neither necessary or correct, it is good to point out the possibility of drawing such so that clarity in the original point can in the future, preemptively, be more explicit in avoiding such pitfalls. Thank you.

As much as I appreciate having a body, I definitely don't want my current body in its current state for the eternal realms. Our bodies are definitely a divine gift and amazing ones at that. But, they are also a mortal ones that serve a purpose for a time until later elevated to a more divine state of glory.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Only a decade old means they are still pretty fresh.  And the man who said them is in the FP and next in line for president. And he is still strident about homosexuality. 

 

This one seems softer:

 

I think Elder Oaks is probably not so happy with that uncertainty about sexual orientation decreasing when it isn’t towards being straight. Of course he is also hard at working teaching social contagion theory. If you know about queer people you might decide to be one when you otherwise would have led a happy straight life. Uh-huh……

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If lgbtq+ members leave because they believe the church and its members hate them, I think that perception would come more from members who refuse (or struggle) to acknowledge their unique experience as gay members of the church, and less from doctrinal teachings that someone believes comes from God.

Empathy and charity come from being willing to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.  Refusing to do so--even claiming that it is inappropriate to do so--is what is going to cause the most hurt (in my opinion).

I'm very glad that those quotes are from over a decade ago and that the church no longer teaches or implies such things.

@Bluebell, I want to thank you personally for this post. It honestly means a lot to me.  One hears pretty regularly that the Church is making progress in how it treats the LGBT community. I truly want to believe that.  Then I read a thread like this and think that while the Church has said some hopeful statements, it is pretty clear that there are a lot of members who have no interest in reaching out towards the LGBT community with any kind of respect and understanding, to the point where they even argue over how that community prefers to be addressed.  If members can not even show enough respect to address gay people with respect and not impose their own labels, then just how far has the Church actually come???  And yes, I am very aware how few members have reached out to offer respect towards how the LGBT community prefers to be addressed.

Edited March 12, 2024 by california boy

[Teancum]

On 3/11/2024 at 5:11 PM, The Nehor said:

There is a morbid irony about the followers of Joseph Smith insisting on normality. Especially sexual normality.

This!!! One hundred time over!!

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm pointing out that not all not-strictly-straight folks are members of the LGBT community.   And as the grand human debate goes about solving the world's ills for not straight folks, it seems like a vastly disproportionate amount of attention gets paid to the folks who stand up and self identify as members of that community.   I'm not giving anyone a voice, I'm asking we acknowledge their existence.  From my limited 2ndhand anecdotal experience (two individuals), they don't agree with or think like you or CB or the majority in that community.   Maybe think about them a bit, when you're giving Smac the smacdown about things you assume most of y'all are united about.  

Y'all like respecting, acknowledging, and raising awareness for marginalized folks, right?  Tell me everything you know about gay mormons who want nothing to do with the LGBT community, just want to walk as a disciple of Christ and go to the temple and say their prayers and pay their tithing and fulfill their calling and vote for [redacted].

 

The two I know have never come out, do not wish to tell their stories.  Again, the one I know best has only shared such things in confidence with two or three people.  With the plausibility of a quarter-million gay LDS Americans, it might be wise to take them into account, even though they're not out trying to be heard or understood or acknowledged as anything other than Mormon.

It is a technical point but they technically do belong to the community even if they don’t see social experiences within it or agree with the majority viewpoints. Even queer TERFs belong to the community no matter how many of us wish they didn’t. Also if they are Log Cabin Republicans they are disliked even more than TERFs. In some cases pity is mixed in with that dislike.

On a practical level how do you take into account the wishes and existence of people who wish to be silent and/or closeted. I assume they want the same things I did back when I had accepted what I was and still saw it primarily as a temptation to sin. A divine cure. I sometimes wish I had one to give. In general we know they exist and we think of them as “closeted”. They and others like them are the reason we have Pride events. Those are primarily to show closeted people that there is another way to live and it can be good and that even if they can’t or won’t come out now there is a future for them out there when and if they some day can. In that sense it is meant to deliver hope and encourage people away from self-harm or suicide.

So what do they want? How do they want to be factored in? I have seen you do this before where you try to pick some sub-group and argue people are excluding them. What would factoring them in look like?

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Understood and agreed.  I'm not calling you out or calling foul, I'm presenting some ideas for your consideration.

 

No, this thread is about an anonymous survey about who leaves and stays in the church.  It rapidly became a discussion of "the LGBT community".  Pretty much any discussion, anywhere, about LGBT issues quickly becomes a discussion of "the LGBT community".  

But the survey results point to a full 4% of members self-identifying as LGBT.  The survey polled "the Mormon corridor".  I googled up a statistic of roughly 6.8 million American LDS, most of whom live in the Mormon corridor.  Doing a little rough math, that equates to over a quarter million gay mormons.  How many do you think have never identified as LGBT?  How many do you think reject the community's various agreed upon things? 

I believe your claims about your experiences.  I believe you have met who you say you've met, and they've said what you claim.   The two folks I know paint a quite different picture.  They seek no acknowledgment of their sexuality of any kind.  The one I know best tells me not only does he reject the term gay, he prefers to not be thought about in those terms by anyone in the first place.  

 

I'm all about sensitivity and respect too.  Don't automatically assume you know more about the gay folk who want nothing to do with the LGBT community or it's ideals, than they do.  I don't think that is a lot to ask for either. 

 

Look, I'm naturally sarcastic and combative.  My screen name, avatar, and posting history has all earned me the deserved reputation as someone who likes to get into fights about stuff.  I'm not trying to fight here.  

The thread may have started out about an anonymous survey, but the thread has been about labeling the LGBT community. If the survey provided any data concerning how members wish to be addressed, then you might have a point.  There is no data on that question making it pretty difficult to be able to answer in a general way, which is why I suggest just asking someone if you don't know.  There is however quite a bit of evidence on how the LGBT community wishes to be referred to in general, and it is not someone having same sex attraction.  Can we agree on that?  I to am trying to find common ground.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Only a decade old means they are still pretty fresh.  And the man who said them is in the FP and next in line for president. And he is still strident about homosexuality. 

 

This one seems softer:

 

If I remember right, that interview was from 2008, so we are getting pretty close to 20 years ago, which is a good thing.

And yes, Pres. Oaks' beliefs about homosexuality being acceptable to God do not seem to have changed.  But hopefully his ideas about showing love and acceptance to gay family members has.  To me, how we treat each other, especially those we don't agree with, is paramount.

 

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think more and more Latter-day Saints are setting aside the "LGBTQ"-style "identities," and are instead viewing sexual feelings in the ways that the Church espouses.

I am not sure I understand your point. I think so but I do not want to presume on this.  Can you explain better?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

r.  It is an insult to me to call my relationship with my partner of over 15 years as just being same sex attraction.

This is a good point.  While same sex attraction is part of a homosexual relationship just as opposite sex attraction is part of a heterosexual relationship, physical attraction is likely a small part of the relationship if ongoing, but especially long term.  To diminish a long term companionship to one attribute of that relationship is more likely to contribute to misunderstanding and inaccuracy than being a precise way of speaking about the relationship….just as referring to marriage as a contract between two people ignores some very important attributes of marriage and makes it appear a marriage is more a business relationship than one built on mutual care, love, trust, etc.

If the intent is to speak precisely/accurately, speaking of homosexual relationships as same sex attraction is not the way to go.

Edited March 13, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

In the APA's "Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People," the only reference to SSA is a single passing reference to "same-sex attraction, which often emerges in early adolescence."

The "Common LGBTQ+ Terms and Definitions" published by the National Resource Center on LGBTQ+ Aging also has a single reference to SSA ("Same-Gender Loving (SGL)*: A cultural term used most frequently in communities of color that affirms the same-sex attraction of individuals.").

In chapter 3 of Karen Stollznow's On the Offensive: Prejudice in Language Past and Present, the author "explores discriminatory language with regard to sexual orientation and sexuality."  She then states: "Starting with the story of playwright Oscar Wilde and his imprisonment, we look at the history of criminalizing same-sex attraction."  She goes on to define "Same-sex attraction or homosexuality is the state of 'being sexually or romantically attracted to people of one’s own sex.'"  She uses the terms 14 times in the chapter, nary once with any intention to offend.

In this May 2021 article published in Psychology Today, Dr. Stollznow used the term six times, all clinically.

This article in Medical News Today uses "same-sex attraction" seven times, all clinically.

The American Psychiatric Association has published this flyer:

Seems pretty clinical.

This January 2024 news article uses "same-sex attraction" 24 times all impartially/clinically.

See also this 2022 article:

If lesbians in the UK can use "same-sex attraction" to describe themselves, then the terms seems pretty neutral.

The "Glossary of Terms" at Georgia Southern University defines the word "homosexual" as "A term previously used to describe individuals with same-sex attraction."

The "Terminology" page for the Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the National Institutes of Health defines the word "lesbian" as an adjective "to refer to female same-sex attraction and sexual behavior."

The "Glossary of LGBTQ Terms" published by Out & Equal defines "gay" as "synonymous with same-sex attraction," and "homophobia" as "{i}ntolerance, fear, and hatred of gay/lesbian people and/or same-sex attraction."

In this 2019 article in PinkNews (hardly a bastion of religious hostility to gay folks), "same-sex attraction" is used five times, all clinically.

On the for SEEN ("committed to promoting and supporting sex equality and equity ... including the protections provided to those with the protected ... sexual orientation"), we find a 2023 article with this statement:

So California Boy finds "queer" to be fine, but "same-sex attraction" to be offensive.  The author of the above piece, however, objects to "queer" but is fine with "same-sex attraction."

And unfortunately for Mr. "the church hates gay people" SeekingUnderstanding, GLAAD's "An Ally's Guide to Terminology" also discourages use of terms like "hate" ("Avoid highly charged, argumentative terms like 'hate' and 'bigotry,' which are likely to alienate people. Instead, use language that is measured and relatable to create empathy and a sense of how rejecting attitudes and actions hurt LGBT people.").  I guess listening to GLAAD is something only the Mormons are supposed to do.

I'll give GLAAD's guidance some consideration.  I find it surprising that words and phrases like "sexual identity," "homosexuality," "transgender identity," "gay marriage," and "same-sex marriage" are in the "Terms to Avoid" column (along with "same-sex attraction").  These phrases get used all the time on this board.

Thanks,

-Smac

Could these articles written by these individuals be biased? Or say, in religions that think living the gay life style is an abomination? 

BTW, you know I'm sure, that the Bible didn't have the word homosexual until 1946?

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/01/christian-homophobia-bible-mistranslation-1946-documentary

Edited March 13, 2024 by Tacenda

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then the world panicked about gays and abortion and all the SEX everywhere and they all became hardline issues.

Those dang hippies ruined it for everyone!   

[Calm]

5 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm all about sensitivity and respect too.  Don't automatically assume you know more about the gay folk who want nothing to do with the LGBT community or it's ideals, than they do.  I don't think that is a lot to ask for either. 

 

How do you believe this should be approached?   (Added:  I had not read Nehor’s post before posting this, I am asking essentially the same thing…how do you see acknowledgment of the exceptions when discussing the general working appropriately in conversation?)

In this thread and others where conversations tend to focus on LGBTs or any other groups that are unhappy with our Church, often other churches, or cultural attitudes, do you see a need to always mention that there are exceptions to the likely majority positions of whatever group we are discussing, the ones that are not unhappy or at least not enough to publicly complain?  

In academic papers it is necessary to define all terms in order that not only there is understanding, but also so others who are studying or working with the same situations know what limits apply where, can duplicate efforts if that is the purpose, and very important, can easily build on others’ efforts. 

In casual conversations is this as necessary?  If so, why is stating the obvious necessary in your (Loudmouth) view (as an aside….this reminds me of when some of us women talk about violence in men, etc and some men get upset because the women aren’t extremely careful to add disclaimers such as they are not discussing fellow posters (since we have had no reports of violent behaviour by any poster as far as I am aware) even when in a previous post it’s been made clear.  In my experience it can be frustrating to have to repeat disclaimers over and over and can feel like those who complain about it aren’t really paying attention, aren’t taking into account posting history and style…more or less treating a poster as if a stranger, an unknown quality, which does not translate to respectful imo.

OTOH, I recognize the need for care to avoid miscommunication which can happen too easily even in the written form where clarification can be asked like this board and certainly can occur to longtime acquaintances, friends and even family who you would think should know better. Often it’s preconceived ideas on what a poster/speaker is intending to talk about. One may assume it’s the same thing as what one is thinking about when it’s not. Other times it’s a poster being sloppy in their word choices, using black and white terminology when that is not what’s intended, etc. 

So what’s the happy medium approach in addressing this issue of enough defining and disclaimers for clarity, but not too much required to avoid being tiresome?

Edited March 13, 2024 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

While I'll leave open the possibility that there may be exceptions, in general I agree with Pres. Kimball.

"‘Soul mates’ are fiction and an illusion; … it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage." —President Spencer W. Kimball (source)

The universality of soul mates continues to be one of those heresies popularized by the misguided book and musical Saturday's Warriors and other media.

That may be true but I still recognized her from before. Nothing anyone can say will change that.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is a technical point but they technically do belong to the community even if they don’t see social experiences within it or agree with the majority viewpoints.

I am assuming you mean by this something similar to someone who doesn’t want to be known as American, but is an American citizen.  When people share an identified quality, they can be said to automatically belong to the group where all share that quality. 

Edited March 13, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

How do you believe this should be approached?  

In this thread and others where conversations tend to focus on LGBTs or any other groups that are unhappy with our Church, often other churches, or cultural attitudes, do you see a need to always mention that there are exceptions to the likely majority positions of whatever group we are discussing, the ones that are not unhappy or at least not enough to publicly complain?  

In academic papers it is necessary to define all terms in order that not only there is understanding, but also so others who are studying or working with the same situations know what limits apply where, can duplicate efforts if that is the purpose, and very important, can easily build on others’ efforts. 

In casual conversations is this as necessary?  If so, why is stating the obvious necessary in your (Loudmouth) view (as an aside….this reminds me of when some of us women talk about violence in men, etc and some men get upset because the women aren’t extremely careful to add disclaimers such as they are not discussing fellow posters (since we have had no reports of violent behaviour by any poster as far as I am aware) even when in a previous post it’s been made clear.  In my experience it can be frustrating to have to repeat disclaimers over and over and can feel like those who complain about it aren’t really paying attention, aren’t taking into account posting history and style…more or less treating a poster as if a stranger, an unknown quality, which does not translate to respectful imo.

OTOH, I recognize the need for care to avoid miscommunication which can happen too easily even in the written form where clarification can be asked like this board and certainly can occur to longtime acquaintances, friends and even family who you would think should know better. Often it’s preconceived ideas on what a poster/speaker is intending to talk about. One may assume it’s the same thing as what one is thinking about when it’s not. Other times it’s a poster being sloppy in their word choices, using black and white terminology when that is not what’s intended, etc. 

So what’s the happy medium approach in addressing this issue of enough defining and disclaimers for clarity, but not too much required to avoid being tiresome?

A good example would be Latter-day Saint vs Mormon. Almost all Saints I’ve spoken with either express a strong or mild preference for Latter-day Saint. A few have said they don’t care. A rare one or two prefer Mormon. The church leadership strongly prefers Latter-day Saint. Which one does it make sense to use for a non-member in a general setting?

Edited March 13, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I for one would love to read about how Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or any prophet of this dispensation prayed deeply about queer sexuality and got a revelation.

There have been talks given where apostles will declare the Lord’s ‘standard of marriage’ or talk about the Law of Chastity but when they bring up homosexuality they almost always make an appeal to the past and how it has always been this way or they appeal to worldly wisdom as to its dagners. In other words it rests on the traditions of our fathers or what other Christians are saying.

And the Church has largely followed the wisdom of the world on this issue. It was a minor sin for a long time when it wasn’t on anyone’s radar. There was no real gay panic. In the 50s and 60s there are interesting glimpses of kindness between gay people and clergy. Then the world panicked about gays and abortion and all the SEX everywhere and they all became hardline issues.

The apostles started talking about how vile and debased homosexuality was using the wisdom and reasoning of the world. President Kimball’s talks and writings on it look like any other Christian faiths and prescribes similar methods of “curing” it.

As some of the world starts to accept it the church tries to walk a middle road and finds it an increasingly untenable path and the middle road satisfies almost no one. It doesn’t appease those who want it soundly denounced and to believe that those who “struggle” with it are vile sinners. It also doesn’t appease people who grow up in the faith and grow tired of hiding. This kind of halfhearted attempt at reconciliation rings hollow when only a few decades before they were almost on the same level as murderers and the leaders insist often that nothing has changed.

And undoubtedly the many suicides that occurred from listening to those that called it vile or next to murder, etc. 

[Raingirl]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

How many besides me are sick and tired of straight Smac explaining to gay people what they should be called and what they are comfortable with  being referred to?

I clearly understand how offensive it is to mansplain to women.  Now we have a guy who is straightsplaining to gays.  The epitome of arrogance.  

 

But he has backup!  Emily has also explained to us that using the word gay is offensive, and that SSA is much preferred. Certainly, these two experts can’t possibly be wrong? 🤦‍♀️

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And undoubtedly the many suicides that occurred from listening to those that called it vile or next to murder, etc. 

I am not sure about the “undoubtedly” due to research that was being done on suicide and LGB? (can’t remember if the study was limited or included transgender and others as well) in Utah awhile back. The researcher said the data did not support the assumed position that being a LGB? member of the Church raises the rate of suicide. I don’t know if there was ever a published study (he was interviewing family members, etc of those who had killed themselves to identify LGB?).  I will try and find the info. I think the info was published in cityweekly and the researcher’s first name was Michael (found his name elsewhere:  Staley).  I used to have it bookmarked in hopes of hearing actual conclusions rather than just hints.   It was sometime in 2016 iirc, shortly after someone (Mama Dragons?) came out with a claim that so many Utah LGBT youth/young adults had killed themselves since the announcement of the Church policy about gay marriage as apostasy, etc when actual data has fewer teen suicides of any gender identity.  Anyone else remember it or have info?

______

And remember it is best not to push the idea that suicides are the result of single causes as it may normalize suicide as a response to such and actually increase deaths rather than help stop them.  
 

https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/how-to-talk-about-suicide-on-social-media

“Avoid stating it happened because of a single cause or event because the circumstances around suicide are complex and always involve multiple causes. Contributing factors may include mental illness, physical illness, relationship loss, financial difficulties, peer influences, or other stressful events.”

Edited March 13, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Haven’t found the reference yet I was looking for, but did find the study by my bishop, Justin Dyer.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/religion-and-sexual-orientation-as-predictors-of-utah-youth-suicidality/

Quote

Study results suggest that not only are LGBQ Latter-day Saints not at higher suicidality risk than LGBQ youth of other religions or those with no religious affiliation, but were significantly lower in suicidality than several of these other groups. The above results do not suggest that LGBQ Latter-day Saints are at higher risk for suicidality than any other religion. Initial difference tests (model 1) suggest Latter-day Saints as a whole are lower in suicidality than most other religious groups. A feature of the current study is the focus on those who currently either affiliate or do not affiliate with religion, focusing on the influence of affiliation. 

 

Quote

In Foundations data, 60.5% of LGBQ Utah teens who had no religion had, at some point in their lives, identified as Latter-day Saint. Of that 60.5%, 42.4% had seriously considered suicide and 11.5% had attempted suicide. It is worth noting that these rates are lower than CDC estimates for LGB individuals nationwide. Although Foundations data also contains youth at younger grades, grade was negatively correlated with suicidality.

Speculation as to why the lower rates typical includes discussions about the much lower rates of drug use among our youth and other protective attributes LDS share with other communities.  If there is contribution to suicidal ideation and behavior from talks condemning homosexual behaviour, it appears to be more than offset by the more positive aspects of our teachings. Unfortunately there is no way I know of to determine if condemnation of homosexual behaviour from the pulpit actually raises risk or not because how would you separate that teaching out from the many others given it’s pretty consistently taught church wide. 

[Calm]

Not the article I was thinking of, but similar commentary:

Quote

Since Staley joined the Medical Examiner’s Office, his research hasn’t focused on the population most affected by suicide — white men between 25 and 45 — but on younger people between 10 and 18. That agenda aims to get at the truth behind a persistent narrative in the Beehive State: that Utah has a high suicide rate because of LGBTQ young people plagued by the Mormon church’s policies and positions. 

It’s not an unreasonable assumption. Throughout history, and especially in recent years, the LDS church has come out swinging against the queer community. The religion teaches that “same-sex attraction” is a challenge to be overcome, a desire never to be acted upon, and an ailment that will be cured in heaven. From the church’s proclamation on the family, which reinforces strict gender roles and puts forth a traditional home life as the only righteous option, to the November 2015 policy (now rescinded) that placed same-sex marriage on par, ecclesiastically, with murder, to the tendency of some Mormon families to disavow their queer children, the LDS church undoubtedly hurts LGBTQ Utahns. But can that animus explain the state’s suicide rate? Perhaps, say the Huffington Post, Ellen Degeneres’s talk show, and a documentary from the formerly Mormon members of the band Imagine Dragons.

 

Quote

There’s a problem, though: “That narrative doesn’t have any evidence to support it,” Staley said. “It doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence that will support it in the future,” he added, but right now, the verdict hasn’t come in. That kind of thing is, of course, exactly what Staley was hired to investigate. To find out which narrative — or narratives — actually apply here, Staley set his research agenda around that LGBTQ-LDS claim.

https://bitterrootmag.com/2019/07/26/a-utah-researcher-seeks-to-understand-the-wests-suicide-mysteries/

[Calm]

Also in the article a good indicator of why rates may be lower for Saints, including LGBT Saints. 
 

Quote

When Staley read the report, he was struck that one-third of the people who used a firearm to kill themselves were intoxicated when they died. And more than half had a conflict with family, friends, or a partner before they killed themselves.

That’s different from the common perception, he said. If you ask most people to guess the top reason people die by suicide, they’ll often list financial woes, but only 13 percent had economic struggles at all. Similarly, just 14 percent had criminal or legal problems. Nearly 40 percent, meanwhile, had a crisis of some sort within two weeks of their death, which suggests that shooting oneself is often a response to the acute, not the chronic. If a person in pain can just get through the initial impulses intact, they may have a greater chance of staying alive long-term. 

The high risk of family conflict (more than half) does indicate to me that if members can do better at talking with their LGBT family members and friends and not create an us vs them feeling, removing the sense of conflict in their lives, this can contribute to lower rates of suicidal behaviour. 
 

And maybe get the guns removed. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am not sure about the “undoubtedly” due to research that was being done on suicide and LGB? (can’t remember if the study was limited or included transgender and others as well) in Utah awhile back. The researcher said the data did not support the assumed position that being a LGB? member of the Church raises the rate of suicide. I don’t know if there was ever a published study (he was interviewing family members, etc of those who had killed themselves to identify LGB?).  I will try and find the info. I think the info was published in cityweekly and the researcher’s first name was Michael (found his name elsewhere:  Staley).  I used to have it bookmarked in hopes of hearing actual conclusions rather than just hints.   It was sometime in 2015 iirc, shortly after someone (Mama Dragons?) came out with a claim that so many Utah LGBT youth/young adults has killed themselves since the announcement of the Church policy about gay marriage as apostasy, etc when actual data has fewer teen suicides of any gender identity.  Anyone else remember it or have info?

______

And remember it is best not to push the idea that suicides are the result of single causes as it may normalize suicide as a response to such and actually increase deaths rather than help stop them.  
 

https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/how-to-talk-about-suicide-on-social-media

“Avoid stating it happened because of a single cause or event because the circumstances around suicide are complex and always involve multiple causes. Contributing factors may include mental illness, physical illness, relationship loss, financial difficulties, peer influences, or other stressful events.”

I should have added that I don't think it's messages just from the LDS church, but many other religions as well. Stemming from the source, the Bible. Which is why I posted the link to how the writers of the Bible got it wrong to Smac. 

Edited March 13, 2024 by Tacenda