A Salt Lake City-based television station reported yesterday that Elder Dallin H. Oaks addressed Church responsibility in recent LGBT Mormon deaths. A few days ago, Elder Oaks was at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C., speaking about… wait for it… religious freedom. In a Q&A session following the address, Andrew Evans (an attendee) posed this question:
Less than a year ago, right here in Washington, D.C., my friend killed himself. He was Mormon and gay. You’ve gone on record that the church does not give apologies. Does religious freedom absolve you from responsibility in the gay Mormon suicide crisis?
The news article summarizes Elder Oaks response with “That’s a question that will be answered on judgment day,” and “I will be accountable to a higher authority for that.”
At first blush, Elder Oaks appears to take a measure of accountability. For many who struggle with the recent handbook policy changes and concerning reports of repercussions in the LGBT Mormon community, a church official recognizing and taking a measure of responsibility for those repercussions is surprising. However, I don’t really think this brief summary adequately portrays what Elder Oaks said. The news article later gives Elder Oaks’ response in full:
I think that’s a question that will be answered on judgment day. I can’t answer that beyond what has already been said. I know that those tragic events happen.
And it’s not unique simply to the question of sexual preference. There are other cases where people have taken their own lives and blamed a church-my church-or a government, or somebody else for their taking their own lives, and I think those things have to be judged by a higher authority than exists on this earth.
And I am ready to be accountable to that authority, but I think part of what my responsibility extends to, is trying to teach people to be loving, and civil and sensitive to one another so that people will not feel driven, whatever the policy disagreements, whatever the rules of the church, or the practices of a church, or any other organization, if they are administered with kindness, at the highest level or at the level of the congregation or the ward, they won’t drive people to take those extreme measures.
That’s part of my responsibility to teach that. And beyond that, I will be accountable to higher authority for that. That’s the way I look on that. Nobody is sadder about a case like that than I am. Maybe that’s a good note to end on.
Elder Oaks begins by recognizing the tragic nature of the events, and that suicides are often blamed on churches, governments, or other organizations. He indicates that the organization’s involvement in those deaths can only be determined by God. I previously wrote about the complex issues playing into depression and suicide. It is indeed very difficult to sort through the various factors, and I believe Elder Oaks is correct in stating that God is the only entity capable of determining the amount of influence anything played in a suicide.
Elder Oaks states he will be accountable to God, presumably in his position as a leader of the institution that may or may not have factored into that death. This is where the response looks promising, if it weren’t for that “but….”
Elder Oaks explains that his responsibility is to “teach people to be loving, and civil and sensitive to one another.” As long as the “policy disagreements,” “rules of the church,” or “practices of the church” are “administered with kindness,” then “they won’t drive people to take those extreme measures.” There’s the rub as I see it. Elder Oaks is not claiming accountability for policies, rules, or practices that may contribute to the deaths. He claims accountability for whether or not those policies, rules, or practices are “administered with kindness” from the highest leadership levels all the way down.
Teaching people to be loving, civil, and sensitive to everyone is wonderful. John Gustav-Wrathall, president of Affirmation, recommended churchmembers do just that in a recent Deseret News op-ed: “Church leaders and members can, regardless of what the policy is, make a concrete, positive difference in the lives of LGBT people both in and outside of the church by creating a safe social environment where everyone is cherished, by including individuals in the circle of our friendship, and by seeking to listen and understand.”
Elder Oaks bears responsibility to teach people to be nice about rule enforcement. In his view, as long as members are kind in enforcing the rules, people won’t be driven to take their own lives. So the danger lies in how individual members enforce the rules. The problem is not with the rules, it’s with what individual members do with those rules.
I’m pretty sure when Andrew Evans asked Elder Oaks his question, he wasn’t concerned as much with how the rules were enforced as much as the rules themselves. Regular members can’t do anything about the rules, so all we can control is how nice we are with enforcing them. Elder Oaks is in a position where it looks like he should be able to do something about the rules. That is why it looks like he should be accountable for the damage done by the rules themselves, regardless of how nicely they are enforced.
The problem? You are accountable only inasmuch as you have power. So the question is, does Elder Oaks view himself as having power to change the rules? The answer, of course, is no. Can Church leaders, on their own, decide to change the rules? The answer, of course, is no. Leaders believe they operate according to God’s rules, which they do not have power to change. So if these are God’s rules ultimately causing harm, where does the responsibility belong? The onus is on God, not the Church.[1]
That’s the ultimate dilemma. If the policy is inspired[2], as official records state, then God holds accountability for the inherent damage the rules inflict. Individual church leaders and members hold accountability for being kind, civil, and sensitive in enforcing the rules. The Church then, as an institution, is absolved of any responsibility in damages from the rules and enforcement thereof.
Discuss.
[1] As every good Mormon knows, “whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is,” (Joseph Smith). Unless he tells you to occupy a government-owned building in a wildlife refuge. That’s wrong.
[2] If the policy isn’t inspired, all bets are off. But don’t worry. Leaders may make mistakes, but they’re never wrong. They just work with “limited understanding.”
Wheat & Tares 
Every person ultimately is responsible for their own life.
i couldn’t get over how much Elder Oaks’ response sounded like that of an absolute monarch:
“As a sinner I am truly conscious of having often offended my Creator and I beg him to forgive me, but as a Queen and Sovereign, I am aware of no fault or offence for which I have to render account to anyone here below.”
–Mary, queen of Scots
Your quote from Joseph Smith is a very dubious quote attributed to Joseph Smith by John C. Bennett and is lifted from a supposed letter from Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon – a letter that both Nancy and Sidney Rigdon claimed did not come from Joseph Smith, and Joseph himself claimed not to have written.
The quote is trotted out to justify bizarre things (e.g., Utah polygamy), makes appearances in manuals, and is sometimes quoted in General Conference. It’s nasty stuff.
#1 Genhy – that is true, and because of that we are responsible for the decisions we make that affect others (for good or ill).
#2 Nate – yes, it had an odd ring to it.
#3 chatch – it is nasty, and I purposefully linked the quote to an appearance in an official church CES manual (published 2000). It’s alive and well.
Checkout this summary of Oak’s and Monson’s involvement in The Values Institute and Aversion Therapy while purging homosexuals from BYU during the 70s.
#5 Howard – Yes, Oaks has a bad history with LGBT Mormons. Combine that with his public comment about the church not making apologies and it makes sense why Evans took that opportunity to question him.
“Nobody is sadder about a case like that than I am. Maybe that’s a good note to end on.”
??????
Oaks sounds rather dismissive–pointing out that other people commit suicide and blame it on the church.
I’m also guessing the parents, siblings and friends of the suicide victims are sadder than Oaks.
What a sad, sad man. Nobody sadder.
Really,dude.
Well as little red riding hood sang,”Nice is different than good.”
I thank Elder Oaks for his honesty, sincerity, and candor. I agree that suicide is sad — and sadder still when another person (a church, a government, a family member, a neighbor, a love interest, a financial partner, a partner in crime, etc cetera) is unfairly blamed for it.
I once wrote on the bones behind this topic: http://www.adrr.com/living/ss_5.htm
Stephen – interesting little read.
It reminds me of 2 items.
One is Acts 5:38-39 where Gamaliel told the Sanhedrin, “if these apostles are not of God, they will fail. But if they are of God, you will be the one that fails.”
The other is the serenity prayer attempting to balance patience, courage, and wisdom.
Sometimes I probably gain more courage to speak out about some things than the wisdom I need to learn when to and not to keep my mouth shut.
For me, the first rule of faith is to do no harm. I don’t want to adopt a faith that makes others suffer so that I or them can have a better afterlife. I don’t have to adopt such a faith because, as another GA said, “Faith is a choice”. I think the feeling of being trapped (that can lead to suicide) doesn’t only come from the church not being kind enough, it comes from not being understood, not being believed or trusted. I think President Kimball said, “It is better to be trusted than loved”. Maybe it’s just as or more important to trust LGBT people than to love them?
Also, I don’t think the people who are committing suicide are necessarily blaming the church. I think they usually have broken spirits and are in complete despair. Church members tend to be hyper-sensitive about anything that appears to be blaming the church. But we need to move beyond that gut reaction and see that there is more going on.
Yes, Elder Oaks (LDS legalist) overspent all of his LGBT creditability back in the 70s on biased wrong headed loveless abusive programs. He is clearly not the best spokesman for the church on this issue, rather he’s a closeted hypocrite!
A good summary Mary Ann. Maybe Elder Oaks honestly believes (“knows” in LDS parlance) that what he is doing with regard to the policy is the will of God. If so he is totally comfortable with passing the buck to God. “Don’t kill the messenger!”
But it could be that Elder Oaks is less confident in the inspired nature of the policy than Elder Nelson. Elder Nelson seems more dogmatic in interpreting consensus decision-making among the brethren as “the will of the Lord” than Elder Oaks, who has said the brethren CAN be wrong, even as he said it is not our place to criticise them. “Even when they are wrong, we are not to criticise them.”
But even if he has more flexible views on policy decisions like this, he probably senses that the Lord supports His brethren as they are growing in understanding through this process. He probably feels in any case, that he and all the brethren are doing all they can, all they can be expected to do to defend the doctrines of the church and protect the saints. Therefore, even if he is wrong, he probably feels blameless.
Therefore, even if he is wrong, he probably feels blameless.
Sure, this statement is likely true regarding *any* topic Elder Oaks addresses!
#7 Lois – I think the “good note to end on” was to close off the whole Q&A. He was there to focus on religious freedom, and I’m sure he didn’t want the questions to go further off track.
#9 ji – that’s kind of the point of the post – fairly or unfairly, the church won’t be to blame.
#10 Stephen, I know they were serious, but the caveats in your post totally cracked me up.
#12 Ryan Lane, there are complex factors going into suicide. If anything, it would be the loved ones around the victims that would blame the church, I think. Not the victims themselves. According to a publication linked in my other post, the two main factors linked to suicide in the LGBT population are (1) depression, and (2) facing stigma and discrimination. People blame church culture and doctrine for creating an environment of extreme stress (contributing towards depression) and/or implicitly/explicitly encouraging stigma and discrimination. Like in Gustav-Wrathall’s op-ed, he explains that a lot of LGBT members just don’t feel safe in the church.
#14 Nate, I think you’re right. My second footnote is only partially tongue-in-cheek. Leaders really shy away from declaring any decisions made by predecessors as wrong. Some of it is a level of sympathy as another mortal leader trying to do his best, but I’m sure another aspect is to preserve credibility of leadership. If you declare specific sitting leaders in the past “wrong,” then you open up yourself to be declared “wrong.”
I am not sure that it is accurate to refer to the “gay suicide crisis.” Questions have been raised about the numbers involved (even from sources not known for being friendly to the church), that may downgrade from “crisis.”
Of course even one suicide is heartbreaking, and one too many.
And I hope that all who are upset over gay suicides are just as upset as the suicides of alcoholics, pedophiles, fornicators, masturbators, and various others who struggle with living church standards.
Should we get rid of all the rules, so that nobody is every harmed because nobody has to sacrifice anything? Why was Christ telling people that they may have to sacrifice (e.g., Matthew 19:29)–was He wrong?
I guess I don’t see the plight of gays as being so very special and unique from the rest of us who are trying to fight the good fight, clawing through each day only through prayer and guidance of the Spirit.
And let’s be clear that not all of the negativity toward gays is coming from those who support the church including recent policy clarifications. There is a lot of rhetoric from those who are purportedly sympathetic that makes gays out as being victims, incompetent to step up and live church standards.
I wonder what is more empowering to gays, the members who welcome gays as fellow saints and expect them to live church standards, with each of us having different challenges and a unique spiritual journey? Or those who tell gays that the church is wrong and it is unreasonable to expect them to step up?
#20 Naismith, and I hope that those who are upset with suicides of those who struggle with living church standards are just as upset with suicides of those who do not struggle with living church standards.
The concern with LGBT Mormon suicides (and I agree it should not be referred to as a “crisis” which is why I didn’t use the term in the body of the post) is whether there are specific aspects of our faith and culture that would put this class of individuals in a higher risk zone for suicide. That is an issue that can be addressed regardless of number inflation. If a group within our faith is at higher risk of depression and suicide than others, we need to be aware of that and take additional steps to monitor and preserve those lives as much as possible.
When I had new babies I had to fill out surveys at the pediatrician’s office for the purpose of identifying symptoms of depression. It is well-known that women are at higher risk for depression within the first year after giving birth. Understanding risk factors is important.
Great analysis, Mary Ann. It’s depressing, but spot on. Church leaders wash their hands of bad outcomes because they figure God commanded it so it must be right.
ji:
“I agree that suicide is sad — and sadder still when another person (a church, a government, a family member, a neighbor, a love interest, a financial partner, a partner in crime, etc cetera) is unfairly blamed for it.”
I think it’s saddest of all when a church *actually is* to blame, but carefully avoids facing reality.
masturbators commit suicide Naismith? Really? Isn’t this just an example of false equivalents?
“Should we get rid of all the rules, so that nobody is every harmed because nobody has to sacrifice anything?”
No but we should get rid of stupid comments on blogs that make ridiculous claims.
Count me as one of the people who doesn’t shed tears when pedophiles commit suicide. I didn’t feel bad for Jeffrey Dahmer either.
Ziff (and others),
We will have to disagree about whether certain members of the Church are to blame for the suicides of other members. I think it is unkind and untrue to make that connection.
Such washing of hands, like ji’s notion of no blame, Naismith’s no crisis, or Dallin Oakes’s I’ll take the heat hereafter, isn’t indicative of the empathy that the Lord showed, advocated, and ordered of us all, is it? We are all to blame. We all have some degree of responsibility to show love to others. Those up the patriarchy are more to blame for not showing love when that doesn’t happen in the administration of the church than others below them. That in no way relieves the person taking their own life of their personal responsibility. It’s time to take responsibility for hurting others.
wreddyornot,
What penalty will you want to impose on me for my share of the blame? I have never known anyone who committed suicide, for whatever reason, so I find it hard to accept blame — but assuming I am to blame, as you suggest, what penalty should I face?
ji, Have you already imposed your own penalty of ignorance by showing too little empathy and love?
Kindness and charity is my approach to life — I recommend it to others.
That’s enough. Everyone is in agreement: Be nice. Love your neighbor. Kindness begins with me. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Charity is pure love of Christ. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…
“masturbators commit suicide Naismith? Really? Isn’t this just an example of false equivalents?”
Some Mormons feel suicidal when they are overwhelmed with a sense that they can’t live up to an ideal. That may be due to being gay, addicted to prescription drugs, unable to give up pornography, or many other reasons including masturbation. There were various publicized cases when I was at BYU in the late 70s/early 80s. Kip Eliason was perhaps the most famous, and is still brought up today.
“…. we should get rid of stupid comments on blogs that make ridiculous claims.”
Oh, I am so glad to see that we are all being kind to one another.
“Count me as one of the people who doesn’t shed tears when pedophiles commit suicide.”
I have sympathy for anyone who has powerful desires that hinder their spiritual growth. I wasn’t so much thinking of pedophiles who actually commit acts against children, as in the diagnostic sense of those who have desires. It is their sexual orientation.
I don’t think we should minimize the difficult road our LGBT members have to trod by comparing it to masturbation, alcoholism etc. (last I checked alcoholism and masturbation are not excommunicatable offenses).
Our LGBT sisters and brothers attend a church which constantly emphasizes family structure, while being told their only choice to remain a worthy member is to give up on the idea of a spouse or children for the rest of their natural life. Pretty sobering when you are 18 or 12 and facing the future. Furthermore, they may have been victims of bullying by classmates, thoughtless comments by church members or shaming and rejection by their families.
So let us open our hearts and minds to the pain of others and hope that we will be guided to provide love, hope and safety in our faith communities.
Great analysis Mary Ann. I do wish we could see more empathy and compassion from leadership sometimes.
I do have some sympathy with Naismith’s point. LGBT issues are getting a lot of emphasis on all sides, which serves to raise the stakes and perhaps the polarisation, maybe forcing those not yet ready to think about such things in relation to themselves to do so anyway, with little in the way of unbiased support one way or the other. That has to add to the stress. It’s all become a lot more public.
I also think there are those who have the tendency to be overwhelmed when they aren’t meeting standards they believe they are expected to meet, whatever that might be.
I want to go back to the original question from Andrew Evans: “Does religious freedom absolve you from responsibility in the gay Mormon suicide crisis?” Oaks had just finished giving a talk about the virtues and importance of religious freedom. He argued for an expansive view of religious freedom that gives religions a great deal of latitude to make their own rules and operate in the public square free from government regulation, and free from harassment or incivility.
Evans is asking Oaks to outline the limits of his definition of religious freedom. Does religious freedom mean that churches cannot be held accountable even if their doctrine or teachings are contributing to young people killing themselves? At what point is the government, or society, or individuals allowed to step in? Or does the church get to hide behind the shield of religious freedom no matter the consequences of their actions?
I don’t think Oaks really answers this question. He seems to be answering a different question: is the LDS Church responsible for gay Mormons who commit suicide. And his response is that only God is in a position to determine their responsibility. He also suggests that if they have any guilt, it is for not teaching the local leaders and members to be sufficiently kind and loving as they enact the church’s policies and rules.
But what about the original question? Does religious freedom mean society should not hold churches accountable for any societal costs they might inflict, no matter how extreme? If you extrapolate from Oaks’ defense, then yes, that is what it means. Only God can render judgment about what the societal costs are and the degree of responsibility that religious leaders hold. But I doubt Oaks holds that view as an absolute. We wouldn’t allow a church, citing Levitical law, to stone its own gay members to death. Would we allow them to encourage their gay members to kill themselves? Probably not. What about activities that increase the likelihood that their gay members will kill themselves, such as encouraging parents to kick their gay kids out of the house and cut off contact with them? Do parents get a pass from housing and supporting their minor children because they are motivated by religious belief? Can they send their minor children to gay conversion therapy that has been shown to cause significant harm?
Can religions promote sex education programs that have been shown to increase the rate of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Can they preach against life-saving blood transfusions and escape any criminal responsibility for a child’s preventable death? Can they preach against vaccines and receive religious exemptions to vaccinate their children even if it decreases herd immunity and leads to massive outbreaks resulting in hundreds or thousands of illnesses and the deaths of other people’s children? Do we always leave the judgment up to God?
I don’t think these are easy questions, and I can understand why religious leaders such as Oaks will advocate for an expansive view of religious freedom. He believes wholeheartedly in the fundamental goodness and rightness of his religion, and so any limits on his religion, any negative publicity, any boycotts or legal restrictions or negative Op-eds, in his view are hindering the work of God. No doubt most religious leaders feel the same way. But government and society have to place some limits.
Government gives broad latitude to religious belief and practice, even when it is harmful. But Oaks often talks about religious freedom extending to the broader societal conversation, and how things like protests, boycotts, and public criticism threaten religious freedom. I disagree. I think public opinion is often the only thing limiting harmful religious practices and beliefs. So it is not only appropriate, but essential, for the public to hold religion accountable and responsible for the role it plays in suicidal ideation among LGBT youth. Such public scrutiny influences church policy, tempers religious rhetoric, provides support to vulnerable populations, and often helps religions undergo painful transformations for their own good that they would never make on their own. That is the true spirit of religious freedom.
Joel, great points. I think Oaks does attempt to address the points. He wants to protect the religious freedom for the church to impose it’s own views of morality (which would be a reflection of what that church believes is God’s morality). In the case of Mormonism, he believes that as long as those rules are enforced wih kindness, there will be no danger of that church pressure compounding the depression and driving people towards suicide.
I think this is the major disagreement right now. Does the church’s views on morality inherently create a hostile environment, no matter how nicely they are enforced?
On the one side we’ve got Naismith and the vast majority of membership arguing that God’s laws are immutable, so claiming the rules inherently hurt people is wrong. If abiding by rules is causing them pain, well tough for them. Everyone has to abide by the rules. Claiming exemptions for sinful behavior because society has accepted it as okay is not cool with God. Any despair these people feel driving them to suicide is he despair of attempting to live a life out of hamony with God’s laws.
On the other side, we have the majority of commenters on this post who have sympathy for the LGBT Mormon population and are not buying the idea that this is out of harmony with God’s laws. The firm lines the church has drawn about gender aren’t consistent with their observed experience and dominant viewpoints of medicine and science. To them, the rules of the church seem more a reflection of the limited scientific understanding of decades past, which is why comparison is often made to the priesthood ban where church leaders held on to a policy rooted (as best as we can tell) in racist viewpoints of a bygone era.
What I really *wish* people would talk about is that suicide is linked to depression, a mental illness that can be identified and managed. It’s the depression that causes people to believe they cannot live up to church standards, and DEPRESSION IS NOT CAUSED BY SINFUL BEHAVIOR!!!!
So, if we have a group in the church that is more prone to depression and suicide, we need to deal with what is happening to trigger that depression (A MENTAL ILLNESS NOT CAUSED BY SINFUL BEHAVIOR!!!!). So. Proceed.
If a General Authority makes a wrong headed decision; if the First Presidency makes a wrong headed decision that is not inspired, they will be held accountable by that “higher authority” that is Jesus Christ in whose name they are making and announcing those decisions.
None of us have the necessary knowledge to be able to ascertain if LGBT youth suicides are the result primarily of any one thing. Research in the Netherlands suggests that parental and peer disapproval have a lot to do with suicidal tendencies among LGBT youth. There is a lot that we can do to work with parents and youth to help us understand how to better work with LGBT youth.
There is no way that the Church is going to change its stance on homosexual acts. Criticizing church leaders for remaining true to those principles nor agitating for a change in that stance will not help the LGBT youth in the church.
Okay, some questions:
(1) For those who see the despair leading to depression the result of sinful behavior: please explain to me what it is about LGBT youth that makes them more susceptible to depression or suicide than adulturers, those who engage in premarital sex, etc. If sexual sin is sexual sin, why are the LGBT kids killing themselves and the others (*much* more common) not?
(2) For those who see the despair leading to depression the result of bigoted attitudes: please explain to me what it is about LGBT youth that makes them more susceptible to depression or suicide than black people (pre-1978) or women, groups often classified as subjects of discrimination. Was there a black LDS suicide epidemic that I missed?
When LGBT members turn to church resources and teachings for help with their individual situations and are given poor guidance based on faulty principles/beliefs/understanding/tradition then yes, the institution most definitely has responsibility. And certainly this runs directly up to those interpreting their feelings and thoughts as coming from the Lord.
…what is happening to trigger that depression…
One very powerful trigger is self loathing and if you’re LGBT that can easily be triggered by anti-LGBT teachings.
Humans are strongly death adverse, for very good reasons we greatly fear death. Religion stands as a buffer to our human fear of death. Those raised in the church are indoctrinated layer by layer to it’s doctrine. Self knowledge of sexual preference comes *after* the indoctrination and this is where the self loathing begins in suseptable individuals. Prior to their own knowledge of their own preference they were programed to reject themselves! Now they must remake themselves into something acceptable of their tribe rejects them and their their religious death buffer is lost!
This is very powerful suicidal Mojo the church is casually dispenses fro it’s GC pulpit!
Young black church members pre-1978 and Mormon LGBT kids are situated differently.
Family can be tremendous support system, especially when the surrounding culture views you as garbage. But when your own family starts going all conditional on you, it’s crappy. And isolating.
You could be the most temple worthy kid, but you’ve effed up your eternal family forever.
I have no ultimate conclusions on what drives suicidality but I will throw out a few things:
Even though people say “sexual sin is sexual sin,” we don’t conceptualize all sexual sin as equivalent. In other words, if you’re doing some sort of heteronormative “sexual sin,” then that can still be channeled in appropriate sexual outlets. For example, if you’re having premarital sex in a heterosexual relationship, that’s easy to fix just by getting married. I mean, I understand that adultery is a little trickier — you have to stick to your one spouse (notwithstanding Mormonism’s history with not sticking to one spouse), but still, your basic sexuality is recognized as valuable.
With LGBT issues, it’s slightly different in that the gay person — if they internalize the LDS message — has to come to grips that their basic desires and inclinations are seen as fundamentally at odds with humanity or their divine heritage. Gay relationships are not “correctable” and the desire to be in one is tantamount to admitting that one fails at being human.
Straight Mormons try to put a spin on this by saying, “Well, if you’re celibate in this life, you can be straight in the next life.” But this has a few things implicit in it:
1) Mormonism really doesn’t have a telos of celibacy. Your goal in this life or the next is to have children. Not doing so is failure as a human.
2) You don’t really have anything to live for in this life. You might as well just go to the next one.
3) One is basically arguing that one’s hope in the atonement is that Jesus will take what seems central to them and obliterate it. “You will be healed in the afterlife because you will basically be a different person.”
Overall, i just don’t think straight people conceptualize their sins as deeply as gay people do theirs. This could either be because ultimately, homosexuality is seen as “worse” than adultery (as I’ve alluded to above), or because LGBT Mormons undergoing crisis internalize LDS messages about sexuality more than straight Mormons do.
I question often why it seems that black people took on the religion of their enslavers, oppressors, discriminators, etc., and what it seems to me is that most faithful black Christians (and black mormons) have a different foundation that grounds them. Not to say that these issues don’t bother people, but that they are OK with whoever they recognize God as, and that let’s them get through white supremacist Mormon bullshit.
I know in my life personally that I implicitly disregard most bullshit I hear on a regular basis on race — because I know that if I were to take it seriously, it would really wreck my own personal sense of self. To put in another way, when there is messaging that contradicts my sense of worth, I always reject that messaging vs rejecting myself.
I actually think that this does apply to LGBT Mormons who make it work. Like, I think of John Gustav-Wrathall’s story — he was one who really internalized the message, almost ended his life over it…but he has had some profound spiritual experiences that seem to ground him to this day, even though he is excommunicated, people think he should just leave the church or leave his husband, and so on.
But in either of those situations (spiritual grounding or even a non-spiritual prioritization of one’s self value over what anyone else says), I don’t see this sort of “grounding experience” as generalizable. I think black people in general have more practice at it (but this DOES have a toll…I just think that the Mormon toll isn’t really all that visible over the general societal toll), whereas LDS LGBT youth do not (especially because those youth are disconnected from LGBT wisdom and community…whereas black kids typically grow up in black families, LGBT kids don’t grow up with LGBT elders as resources.)
Mary Ann,
I am more a believer in #2 than #1. I think Andrew hit on what I believe is a key difference between black youth pre 1978 and LGBT youth today. They don’t have a support system. They don’t have family surrounding them, being examples of how to stay. It is unlikely that their black parents were going to be upset about their children’s blackness. On the other hand, LGBT youth must often worry about the reaction of their friends and family if they come out.
It was also accepted by everyone (I’m assuming, there may have been some crazies who disagreed) that they didn’t have the choice to just “be white.” With LGBT youth, they are often told that they are going through a phase or if they pray hard enough that they will be straight.
Lastly, I am assuming that there was not pressure pre 1978 to encourage black youth to hide their race. Constant worrying that if they told anyone they were black, they would all of the sudden be disowned by friends, family, and church members. That must be very isolating for LGBT youth.
As far as LGBT having a higher suicide rate than women, here are my $0.02.
As a woman, I love my life now. I have an equal partnership with my husband, I have a career and life outside of the home, I love being a mother, sister, daughter, etc. The thought of heaven is terrifying for me. If it turns out the temple is correct, I will lose my equal partnership when I die. I will lose many things that I love about myself that make me who I am. I will lose the dynamic that I have worked hard to create with my husband, children, parents and siblings. I want to delay that nightmare for as long as possible.
#34 Mary Ann: “He [Elder Oaks] wants to protect the religious freedom for the church to impose it’s own views of morality…he believes that as long as those rules are enforced with kindness, there will be no danger of that church pressure compounding the depression and driving people towards suicide.”
The LDS Church is a voluntary organization; it does not “impose” or “enforce” it’s “own views of morality”. Teaching is not compulsion. Speech is not force.
#33 Joel: “Does religious freedom mean that churches cannot be held accountable even if their doctrine or teachings are contributing to young people killing themselves? At what point is the government, or society, or individuals allowed to step in?”
United States law (and law generally) assumes that people have volition: the ability to choose their own actions. A person can choose how to respond to words, but not — for example — a bullet. That’s why physical violence is illegal. Speech, however offensive, is strongly protected.
Many commentators here seem to think that speech and physical violence are equivalent, that the LDS Church is killing by mere words. American law did take such arguments seriously once. The last time was in 1693 in Salem, Massachusetts, was invoked to prosecute accused witches, and even then was controversial. Since then, this idea has been thoroughly discredited.
One problem with the “murder by speech” argument is implausibility: people can choose to ignore a tirade, but not a fatal blow.
Furthermore, the “murder by speech” argument dehumanizes the people it aims to protect. It’s advocates claim that LGBTQ people have no volition, no will, but are mere automatons, compelled by a particular stimulus to perform a particular response. This is tantamount to saying that they are less than human.
Words do not kill. People are capable of choice. Spectral evidence was debunked in the late 1600s. I pray it isn’t making a comeback.
State coercion to forbid or compel particular religious teachings would be disastrous for the Rule of Law, and would harm not only the Mormons, but people you like, agree with, and have no wish to harm, as well.
Well if the law decided it, it must be so! But does a child have volition?
#42 EBK – for kids who believe they will be “fixed” in the afterlife, the have the opposite view – they want to hurry it up.
#43 Jonathan – you’re right, the church doesn’t compel. It administers policies and encourages compliance through teaching, kindness, and, when necessary, disciplinary action. The church has chosen to discourage certain types of behavior through disciplinary action. Oaks seems to suggest that we can do a little better as far as administering in kindness.
As far as a murder by speech argument – the suicide risk factors for LGBT kids are depression and stigma/discrimination. If something about the church increases the risk of these factors, they will raise the risk of suicide. Say a parent allows an unvaccinated child to travel to a country with measles, the kid catches measles, and then comes home and attends a public school. Once the illness is detected, the school, as a precautionary measure, informs all unvaccinated children to remain at home for 3-6 weeks. There is no guarantee that those children would have gotten measles, but parents and school staff recognize the high risk. They take measures to minimize the danger to those who are understood to be most vulnerable.
People have choice, but mental illness affects the ability to make those choices rationally. So yes, suicide victims make a choice, but given the 99% chance of mental illness being involved, assuming the choice was made with an accurate view of reality is questionable at best.
People have a choice to leave family, to leave church, to leave the culture they are raised in. Yes. Maybe you can try to understand why people, especially teenagers who are legally under care of their parents, might find it a little more difficult to act on those choices. That individual also needs to have enough self-awareness to understand they have a choice. Again, assuming a teenager has that self-awareness is questionable.
Everyone, thanks for addressing those questions.
On the discrimination front, the hidden nature of the characteristic is what makes it most different from race or general boy/girl issues. Discrimination based on outward physical characteristics is something a kid faces from birth. They have time to become accustomed, and often have a surrounding support system of examples to help them tune out the bull(crap) like Andrew said. Also, as others pointed out, LGBT characteristics are usually (not always) later to develop. The child does not face discrimination until later in life. The discrimination isn’t based on an outward superficial characteristic, it is discrimination solely based on interior core identity. If a child has grown up in a family with heavy discriminatory behavior towards LGBT individuals, they already understand (correctly or incorrectly) that revealing that nature of their identity will cause disappointment if not outright rejection. Even choosing a life of celibacy won’t necessarily take away the disappointment stress on family relationships. Many of you addressed this issue.
As others clearly pointed out, not all sexual sins are created equal. The church has declared gay marriage public enemy #1: the biggest threat to God’s plan of salvation right now. Elder Christofferson noted that the apostasy classification was based on the “grievous” nature of the sin (given that polygamy has the same classification despite the fact that it’s supposedly an okay form of marriage in the afterlife for some people who practiced it in the past, I’m not sure the apostasy declaration means much more than willfully going against sitting leadership.).
The attack on the family is seen as an attack on gender roles. Gender is considered an eternal characteristic, vital to both our spiritual and physical identity. Our beliefs tie the outward appearance of our bodies at birth as an indicator of our innate skills and talents, our sexual preferences, and our roles in our families and church. The other bajillion factors in the formation of our gender identity (psychology, hormones, chromosomes, interior anatomy, etc.) are considered inconsequential. We are told from a young age the expectations for the categories God assigned us at birth. If an individual discovers later in their life that they do not conform to those expectations, there is often an amount of cognitive dissonance. It’s not just a matter of noncomformity to society and your family’s expectations, it’s a matter of noncomformity to God’s expectations they’ve internalized from a young age.
Add in any other factors: genetics, bad family relationships, trauma, etc., and you have a pretty good recipe for depression.
So, going back to the OP, could these factors be minimized by leaders being more “kind” in administration of the rules?
How did that sin become more “grievous” than the sins listed in the ten commandments? And if it’s so “grievous” why didn’t Jesus even mention it??? The attack on the family is seen as an attack on gender roles. How? Gay marriage is gay, hetero marriage is hetero, someone please clearly explain how gay marriage threatens hetero marriage!?!
“On the one side we’ve got Naismith and the vast majority of membership…”
I am not sure that my stance is aligned with the vast majority of membership. For one thing, I actually have gay friends, inside and outside of church. My first friendship with an amazingly kind lesbian couple was in 1975.
I actually disagree heartily with some things that I hear from some church members regarding gays. Please don’t use me as a poster child for a point you are trying to make.
“Any despair these people feel driving them to suicide is he despair of attempting to live a life out of hamony with God’s laws.”
I would not claim “any despair” because of course suicide is very complex and multifactorial.
Yes, I have stated that I view same-sex attraction as one of the many challenges that LDS people face, which can lead to suicide. Studies show that addicts are six times more likely to commit suicide and this is even true for those who have been evaluated for but not diagnosed with depression. I haven’t seen data (only publicity) that LGBT Mormons actually commit suicide at a higher rate than those who suffer from other various challenges that latter-day saints face in this life, which also put them at risk.
“On the other side, we have the majority of commenters on this post who have sympathy for the LGBT Mormon population….”
Wait a damn minute, please! I think that a lot of commenters have expressed sympathy for the LGBT Mormon population, even if they do not buy the notion that the church is wrong.
What happened to kindness and love no matter what? Do you want people to show kindness or not?
Here goes a story, y’all heard it before?
Nowadays there’s something called failure to thrive, used to have something called hospitalism.
Doctor’s knew you need a clean, germ free place for babies to be born. So new babies were placed in state of the art incubators. And kept in sterile and aseptic conditions. Nothing but the best.
And as many as 30% died. Many more exhibited poor physical growth and slow mental development.
Poor hospitals didn’t have this problem. They couldn’t afford incubators. They had to hold the infants.
We are social creatures. Saying this does not make us mere automatons, compelled by a particular stimulus to perform a particular response. Holding an infant does not make it less than human. We live in relation to each other.
Some of you keep pointing to the fancy, super clean incubators.
And I’m gonna point out the isolation.
Naismith, if you believe that your comments have exuded sympathy and kindness, I would never ask you to comfort me in a time of need. Every time you mention despair you have tied it to sinful behavior. The despair of depression is not from sin, it’s from a mental illness. I’m angry that people tie mental illness to sinful behavior. Tying mental illness to sinful behavior hides the real problem and drives people into deeper despair. Struggling with sin does not make someone suicidal. Everyone struggles with sin.
I do not believe anyone on this board harbors ill will towards the LGBT Mormon community. “Sympathy” in that context meant sympathy towards the views of those who represent the LGBT Mormon community.
One place I’ve really impressed with is the Family Acceptance Project.
http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/
They have links to peer reviewed research about the effects of family acceptance and rejection on health outcomes of GLBT kids.
I recommend reading their Family Education LDS Booklet.
Side step…
Elder oaks put up a smoke screen. He doesn’t believe, none of the brethren believe they will be held accountable for decrees made in the capacity of their callings. GAs have their calling and election made sure. They can do anything except deny the HG and their eternal exaltation is guaranteed. It’s like the ultimate indulgence-everything after the ordinance gets a free pass. Elder oaks may have stopped and paused thinking about lgbt suicides, but he ultimately would recall the promises made to him regarding his time before god’s judgement bar. The brethren also believe that they are holding a moral high ground, despite the pain it may cause. It is their obligation-an obligation they will not be held accountable for. They don’t lose any sleep over this. I’m unsure as to whether each apostle feels it is revelation or is procedurally following. It was reported that they unanimously voted. It doesn’t matter. They are patting themselves on the back that they are doing their duty. The rest if us are sinners, less enlightened. They have the ultimate endorsement, essentially they are saying, “dad said we could”.
Would recommend listening to this, dated 17 Feb. Very relevant to the discussion. May surprise some to hear support for some of Naismiths’ ideas from the panel. http://www.outinzion.org/28-suicide-reporting-and-lgbt-mormons/
“Every time you mention despair you have tied it to sinful behavior.”
I’m going to have to ask you to document that a little better. I don’t read Naismith as doing that at all.
“Naismith, if you believe that your comments have exuded sympathy and kindness, I would never ask you to comfort me in a time of need.”
I haven’t particularly tried to exude sympathy. This is a discussion. If you needed comfort, I would respond differently. I have been involved with people who were threatening suicide and in one case a person who had overdosed and then came to me (out of all the houses on the block) and I held her and rubbed her back and comforted her while the ambulance came.
“Every time you mention despair you have tied it to sinful behavior.”
I think that logic is backwards. This post, by its title, focuses on behaviour that the church considers sinful. Thus I have limited my comments to sinful behaviour and the despair that may ensue.
I totally agree that people who are depressed experience despair, and it may have nothing whatsoever to do with sin. But that goes beyond the topic of this post.
“Struggling with sin does not make someone suicidal.”
A lot of experts would disagree with that statements. Struggling with sin often causes guilt, and guilt is highly correlated with suicide. For example, studies that analyzed the content of suicide notes find guilt mentioned most often, 74% in Ireland, 80% in India. Not that suicide notes are necessarily the real reasons, since as you note the brain is not functioning optimally. (References upon request.)
So does anyone want to talk about specific ways that rank-and-file Mormons can welcome and support their LBGT brothers and sisters?
#54 KLC, I’ve listed Naismith’s comments below that I’m referring to. Naismith mentioned in #55 that she has purposefully been limiting her comments to sinful behavior and associated despair:
#20 “And I hope that all who are upset over gay suicides are just as upset as the suicides of alcoholics, pedophiles, fornicators, masturbators, and various others who struggle with living church standards.”
#30 “Some Mormons feel suicidal when they are overwhelmed with a sense that they can’t live up to an ideal. That may be due to being gay, addicted to prescription drugs, unable to give up pornography, or many other reasons including masturbation.”
“I have sympathy for anyone who has powerful desires that hinder their spiritual growth. I wasn’t so much thinking of pedophiles who actually commit acts against children, as in the diagnostic sense of those who have desires. It is their sexual orientation.”
#48 “Yes, I have stated that I view same-sex attraction as one of the many challenges that LDS people face, which can lead to suicide. Studies show that addicts are six times more likely to commit suicide and this is even true for those who have been evaluated for but not diagnosed with depression.”
———————
And I disagree with the statement that depression “goes beyond the topic of this post.” The pamphlet “Talking about Suicide & LGBT Populations” explicitly states in the box on the third page that “Two key suicide risk factors for LGBT people are individual-level factors such as depression and experiences of stigma and discrimination, including anti-LGBT hostility, harassment, bullying and family rejection. There is growing evidence that the two factors are linked.”
Click to access talking-about-suicide-and-lgbt-populations.pdf
I have attempted to explain previously on this website how depression magnifies guilt making suicidal thoughts more likely: http://www.wheatandtares.org/20270/depression-mormon-beliefs-and-suicidal-ideation/
If you take away the mental illness, the person is able to deal with guilt on a more rational level.
As far as specific ways that rank-and-file Mormons can welcome and support LGBT brothers and sisters, that is a fabulous idea. I believe #51 SNeilsen and #53 Hedgehog gave some great resources. Family acceptance seems to be the biggest factor to help fortify individuals.
I am so tired of being your punching bag. If this is how you treat rank-and-file Mormons, how do you think that you are going to win them over to your cause?
Nobody likes to be bullied.
Naismith,
I think you are realizing that Mary Ann is not seeking honest and diverse discussion — she has an agenda…
Oh please. Mary Ann has been really nice to you two. You’re the ones with the agenda here. You’re losing the argument and then claim to be bullied. Martyr complex again! Conservatives are sooooo picked on!!!! Never mind that they take zero responsibility for a policy that drives some to suicide.
Get a grip. You’re the bullies, claiming to be bullied. That takes nerve.
I never called anyone else’s comments “stupid.” I have never tried to make other people an issue, only discuss the comment at hand.
Enjoy your echo chamber.
Oh yes Naismith, you’re always a model citizen here: http://www.wheatandtares.org/19633/repeating-the-mistake-of-brigham-young/#comment-100203
“Go find someone else to piss on.”
I laughed it off back then. I’m not laughing any more.
You’re a bully against LGBT. Stop with the martyr complex, or I’ll start pissing on you even more.
MH, you need to take a break before you have an aneurysm. Yeah, we all get it, other people’s anger is mean and petty while your anger is pure and righteous.
Naismith and Ji – I have been very open about my agenda to address mental illness in the Mormon community, which is why I am interested in causes related to depression and suicide. http://www.wheatandtares.org/20101/interview-with-mary-ann/
Naismith is arguing that LGBT suicides have nothing to do with depression. I disagree.
“Naismith is arguing that LGBT suicides have nothing to do with depression. I disagree.”
Mary Ann, why do you feel the need to misrepresent what I have said? Why can’t you just make your own case?
I applaud your mission to raise everyone’s awareness about mental illness.
I have never said that LGBT suicides have “nothing to do with depression.” I am sure that a lot of them do. Suicide is very complex and multifactorial.
But mental illness is only a factor in something around 50% of suicides in the United States, according to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those figures can be easily viewed in the Wiikipedia article on Suicide, in the right side of the section on Risk Factors, the graph entitled “Precipitating Factors in Suicide.”
And yes, I have suggested that guilt as a result of sin may be a factor. I won’t disagree if you argue that the guilt causes depression.
But those statistics in the US suggest that depression is not implicated in every case of suicide, so even if every LBGT Mormon who suffers from depression is treated for it (and I would love to see every person who suffers from depression treated for it!), there still may be some suicides among LBGT Mormons. Just as there are suicides among insomniacs and addicts who are under care and thus have been screened for depression, but do not show symptoms of depression prior to their suicide.
The podcast to which Hedgehog points in #53 is particularly illustrative. Two gay Mormon men talked about feeling suicidal at some point. One of them had been depressed, and described the details in excruciating detail. The other was NOT depressed and yet felt suicidal on occasion.
Suicide is very complex and multifactorial.
Mary Ann,
Thank you for once again raising our awareness of mental health issues and our approach within the church.
Here is another interesting and sad intersection of LGBT youth and suicide which was just published today. I feel it might add to the conversation and a careful reading might help us understand some of the situations we are facing within our own community. Much gratitude and best wishes.
Growing up gay in the Church is hard. I have never really been seriously depressed, but I admit as a teenager there were a few times that I thought about “it”.
You go to church and all you hear is “Straight Marriage!” “Sexual sin is next to murder… oh and homosexuality is the worst of sexual sins!” (And don’t get me started on The Miracle of Forgiveness.) With all this heterosexual pressure from parents and leaders you love and trust, it’s hard not to think “Maybe I’d be better off dead. At least in the next life I might be straight.”
#64 Naismith “And yes, I have suggested that guilt as a result of sin may be a factor. I won’t disagree if you argue that the guilt causes depression.”
I think this is where we keep talking past each other. I don’t believe that guilt (even from sin) by itself causes depression. I think that in most cases there are multiple factors at play causing the depression (genetics, family environment, school environment, grief, trauma, etc.). The depression then grabs a hold on whatever guilt the person may be feeling, and amplifies it to a point where it is unbearable.
I also believe that suicide is multifactorial, but I think that better mental health awareness and treatment in the Mormon community would go a long way towards helping cut down on *any* suicides.
Well, if guilt from sin, genetics, family environment, school environment, grief, trauma, etc., are causes of depression, and depression causes suicide, maybe we can stop blaming Elder Oaks for suicides.
I don’t know all the genetic/environmental factors that lead someone to a building ledge.
But if you’re down below yelling,”Jump, jump”, don’t go all innocent.
Ji, again, the 2 main risk factors for suicide in LGBT populations are (1) depression, and (2) stigma/discrimination. Church culture can be tied to stigma/discrimination, and stigma/discrimination itself can be a factor in depression. Due to the nature of our doctrine, it can also be tied to strained family relationships and outright family rejection.
Depression is multi-factorial, but the church provides several of those factors just by nature of the doctrine and culture. Those factors are typically what people are blaming.
We don’t do a great job of identifying and addressing mental illness in our culture. It is common to hear that happiness is a matter of choice, and that despair and unhappiness are the result of sin (speaking from personal experience as a member with depression). The fact is that LGBT kids are at even higher risk for depression in our community than others (because of the factors our community actively contributes), which means we need to be even more proactive at getting them the help they need.
The reason why people are irritated at Oaks’ statement is that more “kind” administration doesn’t sound like it’ll take away any of the contributing factors our community provides. If “more kind” means encouraging family members not to reject their kids, encouraging members to be less judgmental about things we don’t understand, discouraging bullying, and encouraging mental health assistance, then maybe “more kind” can help.
I think Elder Oaks is fully supportive of “encouraging family members not to reject their kids, encouraging members to be less judgmental about things we don’t understand, discouraging bullying, and encouraging mental health assistance.” I think the church culture as a whole is, too.
I believe that the Church (including Elder Oaks) has begun to encourage people to be more supportive… a little. This is of course the same leader who in the interview with the Church PR guy and Elder Wickham said, “I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.'”
Call me a little cynical, but that doesn’t give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about the Church helping foster a feeling of acceptance between parents and their gay children.
Sorry… (#72) Wickham = Wickman
I was obviously mistaking a Seventy for a Pride and Prejudice character.
The idea that this can all be solved with extra kindness is like giving someone who needs a tourniquet a mini-band-aid. I don’t think we should dislocate our shoulders patting ourselves on the back for being good band-aid rangers.
You’re right. Some members would benefit from a band-aid of a little kindness from others, and some may be in need of a tourniquet of serious repentance. Those who feel occasional homosexual feelings might be in the first category, and those who have wholly adopted an active homosexual lifestyle might be in the second category. Inasmuch as the Church is a hospital for sinners, I hope anyone can find what he or she needs, and then accept the treatment offering.
It’s an interesting hospital we have — at different times and seasons in our lives, we are all called to be both patients (seeking help for ourselves) and nurses (seeking to help others). We’re human and imperfect, so sometimes there are frustrating waits for service in somewards and sometimes errant diagnoses are made in other wards and sometimes patients are impatient and nurses are distracted — but still, the love and charity we see in both the pattern and the imperfect reality is a beautiful thing. At least, that’s how I see it.
JI, you’re in need of a tourniquet of serious repentance for your blindness of bigotry. The glasses we’ve handed you to see your bigoted sins are apparently unwanted. Maybe a tourniquet around your eyes will help? Yeah, you’re right, it’s the wrong metaphor and only enhances your blindness. Can you put on the glasses please?
MH, I have written nothing in this chain that can fairly be called bigotry, and it is uncharitable for you to falsely accuse me of bigoted sins. I am not blind, but I purposefully choose to see and to press forward with a love of God and of all mankind. However, I know it is a tactic of the hateful to insist on being loudest and last, thinking thereby that you win the argument, so I will bow out and you can continue with your lies and unkindness — not because you’re right, but to avoid contention.
Yeah, comment 75 is in no way bigotry, just as the First Presidency statement affirmed without bigotry:
JI,
Face palm.
We have no right to judge others that way, it isn’t our role. Lgbt persons are misunderstood minorities, our brothers and sisters, loved by God. Be careful pointing out motes in other’s eyes, as it means you have something much bigger in your own eye.
Also, I was comparing the church’s suggestion that an added measure of kindness could solve the immense pain, misunderstanding, bigotry, and discord in the church re: LGBT issues to placing a band-aid on a gaping wound. This bloggernacle knock-down match just goes to show how true that simile is.
W&T moderators, are you awake? can someone throw the flag in please?
Mortimer, W&T purposefully has a lax moderation policy. I personally view it as a strength, to allow conversations with diverse opinions.
MH and others, I find ji’s comment in #75 as a recognition of common ground even though we have disagreement about particulars. It was meant in good faith.
I am less concerned with doctrinal judgment of sin in these situations. My personal experience with depression has taught me that it warps the individual’s understanding of personal sin and obscures their understanding of placement before God. Repentance is not efficacious in that circumstance – repentance requires a good channel to God. Spiritual activity does not cure mental illness. Although spiritual measures can lessen the intensity, those positive effects are only temporary.
I do agree this conversation has run it’s course.
In Australia we do not yet have gay marriage. The government could do it by a vote of parliament, but at the insistance of the very conservative part of the ruling party, has decided to put gay marriage to a vote. The vote will not be binding.
We have legislation that makes hate speaking illegal.
The Christian Lobby has requested that the hate spesk legislation be suspended, during the campaign leading up to the vote, so they can express themselves freely about gays.
I think this may be what Elder Oaks calls religious freedom. Freedom to do what? Hate speak, lovingly.
It seems pretty weak to be willing to impose penalties on people, but not take responsibility for the consequence.
I have a pathetic hope that something at April conference will clarify the situation.
One of the problems with electing Trump is that many countries have hate speak legislation, which he would fall foul of.
Having such legislation also makes individuals in those countries more sensitive to inapropriate language, when they hear it, either from Trump, or Oaks.
“My personal experience with depression has taught me that it warps the individual’s understanding of personal sin and obscures their understanding of placement before God.”
I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. And there is a new article on the church webpage
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/02/depression?lang=eng
The only point on which I have quibbled is that studies have suggested that depression is not implicated in every case of suicide, that it is possible for someone to commit suicide without depression.
Also, if we care about our lgbt brothers and sisters, perhaps a future post about their strength would be a good thing? Some are dismayed that the dominant theme about Mormon gays is suicide, which is not an accurate or complimentary reflection.
I just think it’s really telling that Naismith et al are more upset at being accused of being mean, than they are that, like, I felt so hopeless and ashamed that I almost attempted suicide in 2008.
It’s like, the one is a clear and present threat with an obvious cause, and we must do something about it right now! We must fight for our religious freedom to not be told that we’re meanies!
But the other? Eh, who knows what causes that? It’s not like there’s anything we can do about it, so stop bringing your “facts” and your “studies” and your “personal experiences” into this. It’s so transparent that you’re just doing this because you have AN AGENDA OHNOES.
And it’s like they don’t understand the difference between guilt and shame. Guilt is what healthy people feel when they realize they did something wrong, like how I felt when I realized I hurt my LGBT friends really badly with some of the mean stuff that I said. When I saw their responses, and realized this wasn’t Satan giving them the spirit of contention, it was people who hurt so deeply they were like wounded animals lashing out.
Shame is when you are told your whole life that your purpose is to have babies, and then you grow up and realize you can’t.
Shame is when you are told your whole life that marriage and family are where it’s at, and then while you’re still growing up the people of your very state vote to keep you from marrying, ever.
Shame is when the people you love casually compare you to pedophiles and violent criminals, when you haven’t done anything wrong. It’s when they tell you your feelings are messed up and wrong, and aren’t the same as a straight person’s feelings, when you’re bisexual and you know they’re the same either way.
Shame is people being afraid to let their kids be around you.
Shame is your friends playing “Smear the Queer” in school gym.
Shame is trying over and over again to be someone else, and failing because you’re yourself.
Shame is being told by a well-meaning person how “strong” LGBT Mormons are, and hating yourself for being so weak that you almost didn’t survive being Mormon.
Shame is knowing you can’t go on anymore, and you’re going to the Telestial Kingdom after you stab yourself and you’ll never see your family again, and crying and apologizing to Heavenly Father for being a terrible person.
Shame is knowing the atonement can heal, knowing that repentance is possible, and knowing that you must not have gotten it because you’re a terrible, willful sinner, who chose to be in this place and deserves everything that she gets. That “despair cometh because of iniquity,” and your death will be your fault.
Shame is hating yourself.
Shame is knowing you shouldn’t exist.
Finally,
You don’t REALLY believe that God will make everyone straight and cisgender in heaven, and that in this life you just have to go without marriage and family and all the stuff you think makes life worth living. You aren’t REALLY concerned about helping those “strong” LGBT Mormons get through a life that’d be Hell on Earth for you. Because if you DID, you’d see their plight as a MUCH greater tragedy than h8ers h8ing on Mormons. You’d realize how disabled they are in your culture, how sad it actually is for them even at best, and you’d do everything in your church’s power to help them. They would become your priority, the same way Jesus left the ninety and nine to find the one.
Instead, you’re just kicking them out, and/or sweeping them under the rug.
Jesus wept.