GaySaint

Hey, if I can encourage him to do an even better job by "gently prodding" - ok, not so gently - him, I'm all for it =). Maybe I should be gentler with my approach. Not at all, but I do believe Christ's story has the most value to those who believe in and follow that path. GMG's path is believed by members of the church who see no reason as to why it WOULDN'T work for everyone, and as such has the most value for them. Of course not. I don't really believe in censorship (although another point that irks me is that comments that don't "fall in line" with GMG aren't allowed to be posted, nor are sincere questions which he finds too personal or otherwise inappropriate). A fair point, but it still comes across in a way that makes gay people who have been there, done that, doubt his sincerity. And it isn’t' just because he isn't breaking the law of chastity, but it's that he tows such the evergreen line (which is not always the church's line). I know plenty of celibate or dating (women) gays (like in the blogs I posted) who freely discuss their struggle with how to live church standards, and why it is important that they do. GMG doesn't seem to give us such insight... it’s all very rote recitation of what one would EXPECT if a gay member were in this position, and the other 999 usually find that what they expect is not what ends up being reality. Those who seem to be able to admit that their reality isn't what they expected and talk about how they deal with that seem to be more... honest and helpful. The parts of your post I didn't address I agree with.

JAG: He says this: He then mentions that the CHI doesn't require him to tell anyone, and while I agree that is true, to not seems to me to be the very definition of hiding. I did miss his following sentence, however: But I still don't feel any better about him. The fact that you, amoung others, think that there aren't many LDS people JUST LIKE this guy who are... ... is the problem. There are a lot, but they DON'T SPEAK OUT. And maybe I'm looking at this wrong because I'm looking at it from the gay point of view. I suppose if I look at it from the member point of view, having a blog like this brings attention to the issue. I don't think it's fulfilling it's purpose of helping other gay members though... only helping LDS members who WANT a gay shining example to look up to. While I appreciate that there will be church members who would follow his blog while not finding others appropriate enough to follow, I am concerned that he is presenting a facade that is not realistic. If members of the church believe that all gay members have to do to be faithful is "turn to the Lord" as this guy claims, as much as I wish that to be true, it doesn't work for the majority, especially if members running with this information and spouting it as the "cure" for homosexuality. And members tend to take things to their ultimate righteous conclusion, regardless if there is any evidence of such. Does that make sense? In other words, I think it is just as dangerous to give the members of the church "what they want" if it is false, as it is to force them to sit through a gay pride parade and present it as a representation of real gay life. EDIT: I would be amiss to not note that you are right about some gay people wanting to tear him down, but I think, from those who I know who do, it isn't because of what he is trying to do, nor is it because he is living his life in the way he is, but because the solutions he proposes have failed for so many others that those who have been there and done everything he is portraying immediately believe that he must be insincere: He is either not telling us something, or he isn't who he claims he is. The fact that "praying the gay away" or even "praying the gay into submission" hasn't worked for 999 out of the 1000 people doesn't necessarily mean that he is lying, but if he claims to be that 1 person, all the rest of us immediately wonder why it works for him when it didnt' for all of us. And since no one can answer that question- especially himself - the easiest conclusion is that "he is not telling us something, or he isn't who he claims to be."

Gwen: I guess I'm not a father, so I can't say for sure... but I would hope this would be the case (but you are probably right). Still, when I was dealing with what I viewed as my trials, I wasn't ready for my family to know for a while. My parents lovingly accepted the fact that there were "things I was dealing with, and I was dealing with them with the proper authority" without knowing what they were. I found that to be so trusting of me, and it really cemented my relationship with my mom in particular. I would hope the dad in this case would be able to view his daughter's repentance process in the same way - although it might be wishful thinking.

JAG: Anyone who has sent me a PM or an email gets my real name :) I agree that people should choose whether or not to be a resource for this problem, but this guy suggests that he IS a resource and an authority. He should not be congratulated for being so until he ACTUALLY is one. But I understand your point. He does, however, comment about how he had issues with pornography as well, but didn’t feel it necessary to tell his bishop about what KIND of pornography he was watching. I happen to have used this same excuse myself at one point in my life, but now feel that hiding such details (and it doesn’t have to be an explicit in-depth confession, but I think the fact that it was homosexual pornography was pertinent as to how a bishop may want to help the person repent and remain faithful) is disingenuous, and contrary to the principles of full disclosure. Maybe he doesn’t tell his priesthood leaders these details because he feels they are inadequately equipped to help him. I would certainly agree with such a statement – but saying that in his blog may be construed as a “negative” – and he certainly can’t let any of that creep in (sarcasm). Edit: I should say that I'm not attempting to convince anyone that this guy doesn't have merit if they choose to see merit in what he is doing (and I do to the point that he is faithful to the church, I just think that his merit isn't what he wishes it is due to his anonymity. He can't help someone stay faithful simply by saying "But I'm faithful... I'm just not going to tell you how I do it or how I feel about it"), just that I think that if we are going to praise someone for their ability to remain faithful to the church while dealing with SSA, we should praise those who are forthright and sincere… Maybe that wasn’t the point of Carli’s post (which is how I took it), and in that case, I was wrong.

Carli: The firesides certainly weren't about gay sex. Sheesh! They were about understanding and helping those who struggle with this particular struggle. I'm sorry that "standing with those who stand in need of comfort" makes you squirm if those people happen to be gay.

If I were you, I would make a formal meeting with your bishop/dad, and when you go in, tell him you need him to be your bishop for a few minutes, and not your father. Make him promise that he will keep the two separate before you tell him anything. If he cannot agree to keep the calling separate from his parenthood, then you will have reason to end the meeting, and go back to the stake president. Just tell your stake president that you talked to your dad about whether or not he had the ability to just be your bishop for a while, and that he told you he couldn't. But I have a feeling that your dad will probably tell you that he CAN be just your bishop. Trust him when he tells you that he can do it. We men have the amazing ability to compartmentalize things... it's just something about how our brain works. If he ever starts to cross the line from bishop to father after you tell him, just remind him "Dad, you promised me you would be my bishop, and I really need the strength of a priesthood leader to help me deal with the guilt I'm already feeling." I'd bet that the only thing from fatherhood that will creep in, however, is a little extra compassion and love for you.

Ok. I had to take some time to respond to this because I had to take some time out and read this guy's blog. There is some talk among the other bloggers that questions the authenticity of this blog. If you take Evergreen’s methodology, this guy could literally be their case study: absent father, overbearing mother, sexual abuse, etc. He is unknown to the community of faithful LDS online bloggers, and his posts are less than genuine. But my issue with him is of a different source. It really bothers me that he insists on remaining completely anonymous – something that, to me, outlines the entire problem with this issue within the church: people who are afraid to speak out and be known. How many young men is he really helping by staying private? How is a young 12 to 14 year old boy who is affraid to even type the word "gay" into his web browser for fear that his parents might see it in the internet history supposed to even read his blog? How can these young men seek him out for help if he won’t provide contact information? How is his bishop supposed to use him as a resource in his ward/stake/church, etc. when someone asks about homosexuality if he isn’t even honest with his own priesthood leaders about what he faces? His blog also doesn’t confront the negative feelings he has. He tows a great church line – which I think is fantastic – but he never posts anything real, anything about the darkness of his trials. He doesn’t give any real information about how he deals with his temptations. I think this guy is a coward. Sure, it’s hard to be open and honest and continue to live a life within the church with everyone staring at you and knowing your secret… but HIDING this issue only compounds it. The real heroes are here, here, here, and here: men and women who are clinging to the gospel while not being afraid to tell the world their darkest moments, their doubts, their fears; who are not afraid to sit on panels at firesides, or talk in their wards. These men and women are not afraid to be known, to be contacted, to be feared, or to be loved; kudos to them, not (Gay) Mormon Guy.

I just got finished listening to this podcast: 191: BYU Professor Bill Bradshaw on a Biological Origin of Homosexuality | Mormon Stories Podcast If you have not listened to it, Dr. William Bradshaw of BYU’s Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology delivered a lecture entitled “The Evidence For A Biological Origin For Homosexuality” at Brigham Young University. Dr. Bradshaw is a former mission president, former member of a stake presidency, has written about the biology of homosexuality elsewhere, and was covered by BYU’s Daily Universe. My favorite quote is: "I would like my gay brothers and sisters, regardless of their circumstance, to sit next to me in sarament." Yes, I'm starting another thread, sorry =) I can say without any reservation: Bill Bradshaw is my favorite member of the church, ever. The beginning is very scientific - but after the first 40 minutes it gets very sincere and quite wonderful. I don't think this has been posted before, but I sincerly wish every member of the church would take the time to listen to this presentation.

Carli: I just have to say this: I had the idea in my head that there was no choice but to commit suicide or leave the church long long long LONG before I ever read anything from any organization that would be considered anti-mormon in this regard. That came from what I PERCIEVED was the church telling me I had to change in order to be good. I realize that was my PERCEPTION, and that isn't EXACTLY the idea the church actually teaches, but the way it is presented, even today, STILL leads to that perception. Please try to understand at least that from the gay perspective. Otherwise your own words will end up being percieved by some poor gay youth struggling with this as confirmation that there is no place for him/her in the church, which will then reiterate the very thing you claim can't possibly be misunderstood (the church's position on homosexuality). It is misunderstood. Often. Otherwise we wouldn't need to have these discussions, and can you REALLY blame a 12 to 14 year old for internalizing Packer's statement "Why would God do that?" as proof that he/she is evil, even though it was removed from the text? Especially when that man is reveared as a prophet who speaks with God and knows God's inner feelings about the subject? Will you help, or hinder, in undoing that type of damage?

JAG: If they have no hope, and if everything everyone is telling them to do fails, and if they are told they are evil, and ridiculed, and bullied everywhere they go for their "unnatural" desires, probably.

LM: The document I linked to suggest that there is an issue getting those numbers, because sexual orienation is not noted on a death certificate, so there is no way to know FOR SURE if someone who commits suicide was gay or not (and can even be contested in living testimony. Some Christians, for example, don't believe homosexuality exists, so I could be overly gay, everyone could know it, but if my mom was a member of one of these groups and denied it as a legal guardian - assuming I was a teen - how is that to be recorded?). But they then cite the numberous studies suggesting that suicide attempts echo closely the stats to suicide successes. There is also a reference to a 1989 study that suggested that 30% of suicides amoung the teen age bracket were of LGB youth, but that figure, while quoted often as fact, has the scientific flaw mentioned above. Assuming 10% of a gay population, that would mean gay suicides were 3x higher. If 5%, 6x higher... if you choose to believe that stat.

So I guess while we all agree that bullying has no place in our society, we don't agree on whether or not the issue of gay bullying should be addressed specifically. I think it should be - although I don't think it should be the ONLY type of bullying that is addressed specifically. I think the major issue is that there are extreamists on both sides who believe that they are not bullying if they are saying what they are saying under the guise that it comes from God (or in the case of religious bullying, the guise that it DOESN'T come from God, haha). Therefore, the bully doesn't think they are bullying. Without addressing certain topics specifically, I wouldn't expect that to change.

LM: Obviously bullying and suicide isn't solely a gay issue... but to dismiss the gay component because it makes us uncomfortable, and using the fact that builling and suicide isn't soley a gay issue as justification for that dismissal, is what I have a problem with. I provided the statistics you asked for, but I don't expect anyone to change their focus. Kids who abuse drugs and kids who are gay are both still children of Heavenly Father.

JAG: I agree that directly, BKP is not personally responsible. The issue is with the members who take what he said to fuel the already blazing "homophobic" fire (I don't use that word lightly, and certainly don't direct it to anyone here. I'm just acknowledging that such people exist). Just look at some of the facebook comments on the "we support BKP" facebook groups and you will find people calling for the death of homosexuals (I'll provide quotes I've recieved or heard if you'd like). The point is that even though the church didn't INTEND for people to talk BKP's words negatively, and have since come out and issued statements against these member's behaviors - the words added to the fire of extreamists who WILL use them to harm others. I've seen members on these forums banned recently for what they have said about BKPs talk, and the worst part is that they think that they are being righteous by doing so. I realize the church can only do so much, and has done awesome things since the talk to help, but not all the members are following suit, and dismissing their behavior to avoid confrontation and because of the gay community's reaction is irresponsible.

From http://www.sprc.org/library/SPRC_LGBT_Youth.pdf Little can be said with any certainty about the extent of suicide deaths among LGB youth. Sexual orientation is not usually included in a cause of death report or on a death certificate… Although hard data on suicide rates for young LGB people are lacking, research has established that the most reliable indicators of suicide risk are suicidal ideation and prior suicide attempts (American Psychiatric Association, 2003; Beautrais, 2001; Beautrais, 2004; Borges et al., 2006; Gibb, Beautrais, & Fergusson, 2005). Studies that compare the rate of suicide attempts among LGB youth with those among heterosexual youth show significantly higher rates for LGB youth: • Remafedi and colleagues (Remafedi, French, Story, Resnick, & Blum, 1998) found that 28.1 percent of gay or bisexual males in grades 7 through 12 had attempted suicide at least once during their lives, while only 4.2 percent of heterosexual males in those grades had attempted suicide. The corresponding percentages for females were 20.5 percent for lesbian or bisexual females and 14.5 percent for heterosexual females. • The Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey reported that LGB high school students in Massachusetts were more than four times as likely as the state’s non-LGB students to have attempted suicide in the last year (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2006b). • Safren and Heimberg (1999) reported that 30 percent of LGB youth versus 13 percent of heterosexual youth (mean age of about 18) had attempted suicide at some point. • Garofalo and colleagues (1999) found that high school students identifying as either LGB or not sure of their sexual orientation were 3.4 times as likely to have attempted suicide within the last 12 months as their heterosexual peers. • D’Augelli and Hershberger (1995) found that LGB youth were three times as likely to have attempted suicide as heterosexual youth. • Russell and Joyner (2001) found that the risk of attempting suicide was twice as high among LGB youth as among heterosexual youth. • Eisenberg and Resnick (2006) found that LGB students in grades 9 and 12 were significantly more likely to have attempted suicide than their heterosexual peers. 52.4 percent of LB females and 29.0 percent of GB males had attempted suicide. The percentages of non-GLB females and males who had attempted suicide were 24.8 and 12.6 percent respectively. • A study in New Zealand found that 32.1 percent of LGB youth through age 21 had attempted suicide, whereas only 7.1 percent of same-age heterosexual youth had made such an attempt (Fergusson, Horwood, & Beautrais, 1999). Those interested in this topic may also want to check out “The Family Acceptance Project.” It was Caitlin Ryan who was here in SLC a few weeks ago talking about this issue: home | Family Acceptance Project Whether or not there has been a rise in actual suicides over the years, I do think this month has pointed out on of the very real reasons why some of these suicides occur. It seems strange to me that because it happens to gay people, some would dismiss the issue, refuse to acknowledge that the way these people are being treated BECAUSE OF their sexual orientation does have something to do with it, or not address it directly.

Ok. Maybe I should have said that it is an issue because of the number of gay suicides that the media has chosen to cover because those suicides resulted from bullying. I just don't understand why people have issue with addressing the specific issue of bullying because of one's sexual orientation if that is the current cause of deaths. Honestly, I don't care one wit about stats. I care that preventable deaths are occuring. If the parents, schools, etc. of these people are going to the media and using the gay angle to get attention, I'm fine with that. I would be fine if someone who was bullied and killed themselves over being mormon went to the media and talked about the religious bias their kid faced too. JAG: There are stats that talk about how gay people commit suicide at higher rate than heterosexuals (and would account for more than 5% of suicides), particularly teens. There was just a woman here in SLC discussing "family rejection" and how that adds to those stats. I'll try to find that info for you...

Carli: It's a big production as of late because of the sheer numbers of gay suicides recently. I'm sure if a bunch of people were committing suicide because of their gender or race, or any other reason, the media would be addressing that specific concern too. Obviously it isn't just gay people who need affirmation to be mentally healthy - everyone does - but it should also be obvious that something is going wrong in regards to affirmations being recieved by gay people who are committing suicide.

I would rather know, especially if the alternative was people talking about me behind my back.

Carli: Let me quote two people, and see if it is enough explaination: Tony Collette: "God wants you to choose to be single, not just accept the fact that you happened to remain single." Sneakers in Sacrament (blog): "Single people are not asked to sacrifice, they are asked to keep looking."

Prince: I can only speak for myself, I supposed... and let's just say I've tried... I've tried a lot, and had lots and lots of girls fall in love with me. Could I sleep with them? Probably. Just like you could "probably" sleep with someone of the same sex if you really forced yourself to. It might even be enjoyable... But being gay is more than just about sex. The church's most recent statement reiterated that sexuality is "deep[ly] emotional, social and physical" - and I would add spiritual. I found myself INCAPABLE of falling in love with a woman, just like you would be incapable of falling in love with a guy (and I'm talking romantic love, not friendly love in both cases). Could I be physically intimate with someone I don't love? Sure. People do it all the time. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not I could get that connection that results from being emotionally, spiritually, socially, and physically linked. As hard as I tried to expand myself to the point of making that work with a woman, it never worked. I would love to tell you why, but I don't know anymore than you would know why you wouldn't be able to do so with another man. Hopefully that adds to the discussion, and doesn't detract from it... EDIT: I should add that I know many gay men who are so physically repulsed by the idea of being with a woman that they get physically ill at the thought.

Prince: While I highly disagree that homosexuals are being asked to do the same thing as unmarried heterosexuals in the church (heterosexuals aren't asked to CHOOSE to be celibate or deny themselves any romantic connection or involvment - they are asked to keep looking), I do agree with your last paragraph. Strangely, it seems like item C in your list is where gay members who are trying to change are lacking... it's also the one area over which they have no control. I think a lot of members of the church assume that gays who don't change are lacking in either A or B - and I think that's a gross misconception. I would have loved to have seen President Packer address this issue (although it was addressed in God Loveth His Children).

PC: I agree with your comments on celibacy, and do think it is the most viable option to the gay Mormon conundrum. But I do think I need to point out that there would undoubtedly is a difference in elective celibacy and expected celibacy. Even priests have the option to choose celibacy or not, depending on if they feel they are called to or capable of the celibacy calling. No one looks down on them for choosing to love instead. Even those who “ignore” the priesthood calling and choose to marry instead are not viewed as sinful. ALL homosexuals are EXEPCTED to accept celibacy as their only solution (or marriage to a woman, I suppose, which I would argue is even worse and highly immoral – at least for me). Forced celibacy is a much different story, and I’m not sure it would have the same godly blessings that elective celibacy (in order to serve God and the church) would have. Something about accepting a “gift” begrudgingly comes to mind :)

Prince: Maybe I'm just a perfectionist Ok. I AM a perfectionist... I don't know how to respond other than that without taking the topic further off course...

Why would I want to be a member of the church if I wasn't aiming for exaltation?

I think until there is a workable solution that is honestly discussed (celibacy, being one possibility), and until it is very clear that homosexuals aren't inherantly evil (something that is taught and assumed too often by religious leaders, and taken even further by their followers), yes, suicide becomes a workable solution. Is it the leaders fault if their congregants are left with only this one workable solution because no other has been presented? I think partially, yes.