The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[Solon]

The intellectually lazy approach you and SU take to this subject is really disappointing. You're both very smart and well-educated. It's a shame. On the subject of marriage equality, over the last eight or nine years I have learned a great deal about the views opposing mine, and I have come to respect those views. You don't seem interested in that kind of dialogue. I posted this link to an article that I thought was thoughtful and respectful and interesting. And yet you respond yet again with nothing more than "LOL" followed by ridicule, without engaging at all. Like I say, intellectually lazy. Why do that?

P.S. You're confusing my efforts at thoughtful and civil discussion with my "fighting a battle." Think harder.

I agree that LA Ute posts in good faith geared towards rational discussion.

This blog-post, though, (for quick reference: http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclu...new-gnosticism) is really bad as an argument (and in clarity - at some point, good writing demands clarity of expression)

Girgis's main thesis: that "sexual progressivism is illiberal" is poorly defined and even more poorly defended. What the author means is that the people who have advocated for sexual progressivism are acting illiberally in their denigration of those who have resisted. This is difficult to argue with. The rhetoric is heated and often crosses the boundaries of decent discussion (more on this below). But - like the LDS church's protestations of late - it essentially moves the argument from a rational discussion of why same-sex marriage (and now transgender issues, as the author points out, as the dialogue has shifted "virtually overnight") is morally or socially unacceptable to a discussion of whether those who continue to oppose same-sex marriage (and now transgender issues) should be free from attacks & ridicule.

As both sides in this discussion continue to claim the higher-ground of victimhood, there isn't much hope of progress. The author's insistence on characterizing this new approach to marriage & self & individuality as a "New Gnosticism" is verbose & overblown: the embedded link that gives more explanation of The New Gnosticism asserts that this movement espouses "counterprinciples to the principles of existence" and likens the swelling of gay-rights to the rise of Nazism in the 20th century. It goes on to alarm the world that "the nihilism inherent in the homosexual movement necessarily extends to all of reality." The ridiculousness of this "New Gnosticism" discussion is evident, I hope.

(Quick reference to the New Gnosticism link: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I..._movement.aspx)

When Girgis does decide to allude to the moral underpinnings of the anti-same-sex argument (i.e., the basis for rational debate), it is in a sweeping, generalized, taken-for-granted way that indicates apologia rather than argumentum. For example, Girgis (sarcastically?) derides the Supreme Court for legally deciding that "one-flesh union has no distinct value in itself" and "what children need is parenting in some disembodied sense, and not mothering and fathering", conveniently omitting mention of divorce, cohabitation, and serial-fatherhood - legal, but distasteful to religious morality. I doubt Girgis is really lamenting the fact that divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth are legal. Instead, these obligatory and token talking-points are a red-herring: the main thrust of the article is to lament the illiberal criticism of those who do view same-sex marriage as immoral. And here, Girgis would have a point to make. However, I don't see this as a Religiosu Freedom issue.

Really, this is a discussion about Freedom of Speech, although nobody seems to recognize it. Religious Freedom does not mean that someone has the right to avoid criticism of his/her religious beliefs. On the other hand, true Free Speech requires individual and mutual respect. As freespeechdebate.com puts it, "we respect the believer, but not necessarily the content of the belief" (http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-6/)

As long as Girgis and other religious apologists continue to demand freedom from criticism, and as long as their opponents insist on criticizing individuals instead of the content of their beliefs (while safeguarding the right for those beliefs to continue), we're going to continue to see these kinds of semantic arguments, overall whining, and comparisons to the Nazis (on both sides).

[SeattleUte]

I agree that LA Ute posts in good faith geared towards rational discussion.

This blog-post, though, (for quick reference: http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclu...new-gnosticism) is really bad as an argument (and in clarity - at some point, good writing demands clarity of expression)

Girgis's main thesis: that "sexual progressivism is illiberal" is poorly defined and even more poorly defended. What the author means is that the people who have advocated for sexual progressivism are acting illiberally in their denigration of those who have resisted. This is difficult to argue with. The rhetoric is heated and often crosses the boundaries of decent discussion (more on this below). But - like the LDS church's protestations of late - it essentially moves the argument from a rational discussion of why same-sex marriage (and now transgender issues, as the author points out, as the dialogue has shifted "virtually overnight") is morally or socially unacceptable to a discussion of whether those who continue to oppose same-sex marriage (and now transgender issues) should be free from attacks & ridicule.

As both sides in this discussion continue to claim the higher-ground of victimhood, there isn't much hope of progress. The author's insistence on characterizing this new approach to marriage & self & individuality as a "New Gnosticism" is verbose & overblown: the embedded link that gives more explanation of The New Gnosticism asserts that this movement espouses "counterprinciples to the principles of existence" and likens the swelling of gay-rights to the rise of Nazism in the 20th century. It goes on to alarm the world that "the nihilism inherent in the homosexual movement necessarily extends to all of reality." The ridiculousness of this "New Gnosticism" discussion is evident, I hope.

(Quick reference to the New Gnosticism link: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I..._movement.aspx)

When Girgis does decide to allude to the moral underpinnings of the anti-same-sex argument (i.e., the basis for rational debate), it is in a sweeping, generalized, taken-for-granted way that indicates apologia rather than argumentum. For example, Girgis (sarcastically?) derides the Supreme Court for legally deciding that "one-flesh union has no distinct value in itself" and "what children need is parenting in some disembodied sense, and not mothering and fathering", conveniently omitting mention of divorce, cohabitation, and serial-fatherhood - legal, but distasteful to religious morality. I doubt Girgis is really lamenting the fact that divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth are legal. Instead, these obligatory and token talking-points are a red-herring: the main thrust of the article is to lament the illiberal criticism of those who do view same-sex marriage as immoral. And here, Girgis would have a point to make. However, I don't see this as a Religiosu Freedom issue.

Really, this is a discussion about Freedom of Speech, although nobody seems to recognize it. Religious Freedom does not mean that someone has the right to avoid criticism of his/her religious beliefs. On the other hand, true Free Speech requires individual and mutual respect. As freespeechdebate.com puts it, "we respect the believer, but not necessarily the content of the belief" (http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-6/)

As long as Girgis and other religious apologists continue to demand freedom from criticism, and as long as their opponents insist on criticizing individuals instead of the content of their beliefs (while safeguarding the right for those beliefs to continue), we're going to continue to see these kinds of semantic arguments, overall whining, and comparisons to the Nazis (on both sides).

Solon, thank you for taking the time to write this; I agree with all of it except to the extent that it seems you are trying to be too politic (your fatal flaw in an otherwise impeccable presentation over the years of your philosophical outlook). As LA notes, same-sex marriage is the law of the land and that battle is over. Indeed, it seems that overwhelmingly most Americans have moved on, have accepted--if not celebrated--this new law, and that in the years (quite a few years now) that states began making same sex marriage a right, the institution of the family has not been evidently harmed as a result of this discrete development.

So, what is going on? Why do bloggers like this Girgis (and posters who link them) persist? What they want is in fact respect. Restoration of religion's erstwhile moral authority would be ideal, but for now all they want is respect. I agree with you wholeheartedly that "Religious Freedom does not mean that someone has the right to avoid criticism of his/her religious beliefs." I consider it a positive development for humankind that religions are no longer automatically granted respect for absurd or injurious beliefs or positions only because they are religions. And this leads me to my one, really very minor disagreement with your post. You follow the foregoing quotation with, "On the other hand, true Free Speech requires individual and mutual respect." Actually, free speech is a term of art in the law that means abridgement of speech by force of law, which is prohibited by the First Amendment. Even Obama may give a speech that evinces disrespect for speech predicated on religion, such as speech that diminishes transgender folks--or maybe even the individuals issuing such speech themselves because of such speech, and there is no violation of fee speech in that sense.

To the extent you are advocating a code of conduct that you believe to be moral or ethical, I'm sorry, I can't respect speech that cites religious belief as the sole support for conduct or positions that are absurd or injurious. And I find it hard for my reaction to such speech not to affect my assessment of the speaker's character. But the great thing about speech is that turnabout is fair play--apparently they respect me less for my rejection, indeed, my outright lack of respect for their beliefs. Isn't that what religions have done for eons (that and set people on fire for rejecting their beliefs, outside of places and epochs founded on Enlightenment principles), denigrate the character of those who don't believe as they do. And that's what makes richly ironic this current debate about religious people complaining about "illiberal" reactions to their absurd and injurious beliefs.

[sancho]

the institution of the family has not been evidently harmed as a result of this discrete development.

I will admit - I couldn't really follow the past two posts except for this part. I never really bought into the "harm the institution of the family" argument for a few reasons, but I do want to point out that a few years of legalized marriage couldn't possibly be enough time to say that nothing has happened. If there are any negative consequences to the social/cultural changes we are experiencing related to sexuality and gender, they won't be felt for decades or centuries. They will also be completely intractable amongst the infinitely many competing factors, so it's not something worth thinking too hard about.

[SeattleUte]

I will admit - I couldn't really follow the past two posts except for this part. I never really bought into the "harm the institution of the family" argument for a few reasons, but I do want to point out that a few years of legalized marriage couldn't possibly be enough time to say that nothing has happened. If there are any negative consequences to the social/cultural changes we are experiencing related to sexuality and gender, they won't be felt for decades or centuries. They will also be completely intractable amongst the infinitely many competing factors, so it's not something worth thinking too hard about.

The reason that you don't buy it is it violates your common sense. Yes, there are infinite factors that affect the success or failure of a family. The harm to the institution of the family argument has just been an effort to make rational argument where the real reason is just pure unadulterated personal bias--so my comment that you quoted was actually sarcastic. Homosexuality has been loathed and regarded as sin for a long time in monotheism, and religion is nothing if not resistant to change (I would say progress). That's the true reason religion opposes same sex marriage.

[Rocker Ute]

Seattle, is he calling for respect for their speech (or accepting what they are saying) or respect for one another to speak about and believe whatever they chose, even when you disagree with it? I would assume he meant the latter, and that creates open discourse versus shouting each other down, which is a good thing. Reading about Skokie, Ill. in 1977 is interesting as I wonder if things would have turned out the same way for free speech today. Interestingly I think that Skokie won in this exercise of free speech in saying that right was more important than shutting down something that was truly despicable.

Most people would cite the discourse of Jefferson and Adams that went on for years even while bitter enemies as an example of strong disagreement but mutual respect.

As for what sancho mentioned, it is hard to proclaim that there are no negative affects of SSM just yet, there are too many factors in society (I would argue that will taint unfavorably for SSM) like continued social stigma to get a truly good sample. There very well may be, but when then I read that we are being messed up by simply not being able to see the stars it is hard to argue that there are no side effects for what has been biologically happening for millennia (male and female parenting) by watching for a few years. Certainly there will be effects, the question is are they enough to justify banning it (which I would put at highly-doubtful).

But, we've got to shout louder and win faster today, social media demands it.

[SeattleUte]

Seattle, is he calling for respect for their speech (or accepting what they are saying) or respect for one another to speak about and believe whatever they chose, even when you disagree with it? I would assume he meant the latter, and that creates open discourse versus shouting each other down, which is a good thing. Reading about Skokie, Ill. in 1977 is interesting as I wonder if things would have turned out the same way for free speech today. Interestingly I think that Skokie won in this exercise of free speech in saying that right was more important than shutting down something that was truly despicable.

Most people would cite the discourse of Jefferson and Adams that went on for years even while bitter enemies as an example of strong disagreement but mutual respect.

As for what sancho mentioned, it is hard to proclaim that there are no negative affects of SSM just yet, there are too many factors in society (I would argue that will taint unfavorably for SSM) like continued social stigma to get a truly good sample. There very well may be, but when then I read that we are being messed up by simply not being able to see the stars it is hard to argue that there are no side effects for what has been biologically happening for millennia (male and female parenting) by watching for a few years. Certainly there will be effects, the question is are they enough to justify banning it (which I would put at highly-doubtful).

But, we've got to shout louder and win faster today, social media demands it.

Supporting the Court's decision in Skokie and even, as a private person, respecting those Nazi demonstrators who the Court said had a right to march are two different things--indeed that's what makes Skokie so resonant.

[Rocker Ute]

Supporting the Court's decision in Skokie and even, as a private person, respecting those Nazi demonstrators who the Court said had a right to march are two different things--indeed that's what makes Skokie so resonant.

Nobody is asking anyone to respect the Nazi's, just respect their right to speech, that is what I'm driving at. I believe is what Solon was talking about when he spoke of 'individual and mutual respect'.

[LA Ute]

Girgis is is a young scholar (just beginning his doctoral program, IIRC). Still, somehow his essay got past the editors at First Things --which, BTW, is not a mere blog, SU. As I said, I posted it here simple because I thought his argument was interesting and somewhat novel, and contained some persuasive points. A sincere thanks to you all for your interesting analyses. I'd say more, but I am flat on my back with a bad case of food poisoning.

[SeattleUte]

Nobody is asking anyone to respect the Nazi's, just respect their right to speech, that is what I'm driving at. I believe is what Solon was talking about when he spoke of 'individual and mutual respect'.

Oh, okay. Then we don't disagree. I certainly respect Gurgis's right to publish his article. But I don't think Gurgis is concerned about that.

[SeattleUte]

Girgis is is a young scholar (just beginning his doctoral program, IIRC). Still, somehow his essay got past the editors at First Things --which, BTW, is not a mere blog, SU. As I said, I posted it here simple because I thought his argument was interesting and somewhat novel, and contained some persuasive points. A sincere thanks to you all for your interesting analyses. I'd say more, but I am flat on my back with a bad case of food poisoning.

Food poisoning is a very serious thing. Take care of yourself and keep us posted. We love you, LA.

[Ma'ake]

By demonizing the creeping Agnosticism/Progressivism, Girgis completely ignores and discards how progressive views of human nature have benefitted untold numbers of people who have belief systems he fully supports.

Example: Arranged Marriages. Through human history, arranged marriage has been the predominant model, whether it was part of a treaty between warring tribes, or an economic partnership among fathers, or whatever.

Today, the notion of choice in entering marriage is the predominant model, and has even worked its way into theology, notably Mormonism. (I'm sure there were arranged marriages in the history of Mormonism, but it's at odds with the current belief system).

To demonstrate how progressivism has altered understandings and holds itself accountable to its own advances in understand of human nature, imagine the (justifiable) outrage if we were to find out that parents were arranging gay marriages of their children.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

https://www.facebook.com/727323385/v...3900837038386/

[Scratch]

https://www.facebook.com/727323385/v...3900837038386/

So I'm trying to follow the logic here, but I have admittedly just been aware of this from a distance. The narrative is that there has been a spike in the number of gay LDS suicides, correct? If that's true, what is the driving factor behind the spike in suicides? I mean, it's not like the LDS church was super sympathetic to and supportive of homosexuality and then suddenly changed direction. If anything, the LDS church has softened its position and made more inclusive statements recently than ever in the past. So what has happened to cause the spike, because I don't see a logical argument for saying that it's the LDS church's approach to homosexuality. And by the way, if there is a significantly higher number of suicides in the gay LDS community then that is a very concerning issue that should be addressed, but I'm trying to understand if there is something that is causing a spike that needs to be examined.

[SeattleUte]

So I'm trying to follow the logic here, but I have admittedly just been aware of this from a distance. The narrative is that there has been a spike in the number of gay LDS suicides, correct? If that's true, what is the driving factor behind the spike in suicides? I mean, it's not like the LDS church was super sympathetic to and supportive of homosexuality and then suddenly changed direction. If anything, the LDS church has softened its position and made more inclusive statements recently than ever in the past. So what has happened to cause the spike, because I don't see a logical argument for saying that it's the LDS church's approach to homosexuality. And by the way, if there is a significantly higher number of suicides in the gay LDS community then that is a very concerning issue that should be addressed, but I'm trying to understand if there is something that is causing a spike that needs to be examined.

In "The Old Regime and the Revolution," a study of political ferment in late-eighteenth-century France, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that, in the decades leading up to the Revolution, France had been notably prosperous and progressive. We hear a lot about the hunger and the song of angry men, and yet the truth is that, objectively, the French at the start of the seventeen-eighties had less cause for anger than they’d had in years. Tocqueville thought it wasn’t a coincidence. “Evils which are patiently endured when they seem inevitable, become intolerable when once the idea of escape from them is suggested,” he wrote. His claim helped give rise to the idea of the revolution of rising expectations: an observation that radical movements appear not when expectations are low but when they’re high, and vulnerable to disappointment.

This phenomenon, which I think most definitely is real, explains much of what is going on in current America and the world including the bizarre forms of student unrest (I got this quote out of a New Yorker article on that subject). If you study and have lived as long as I have you realize that, in general, things have never been as good for humans worldwide and in America as they are today. By any measure--civil rights, liberty, any kind of mortality, economic plenty etc. Yet people have never been so angry and felt so oppressed; here in America Bernie Sanders made a political career out of making people feel like they're helpless and screwed by rich bogeymen.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...-arts-colleges

[LA Ute]

This phenomenon, which I think most definitely is real, explains much of what is going on in current America and the world including the bizarre forms of student unrest (I got this quote out of a New Yorker article on that subject). If you study and have lived as long as I have you realize that, in general, things have never been as good for humans worldwide and in America as they are today. By any measure--civil rights, liberty, any kind of mortality, economic plenty etc. Yet people have never been so angry and felt so oppressed; here in America Bernie Sanders made a political career out of making people feel like they're helpless and screwed by rich bogeymen.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...-arts-colleges

Fascinating. Thanks for posting.

[Scratch]

This phenomenon, which I think most definitely is real, explains much of what is going on in current America and the world including the bizarre forms of student unrest (I got this quote out of a New Yorker article on that subject). If you study and have lived as long as I have you realize that, in general, things have never been as good for humans worldwide and in America as they are today. By any measure--civil rights, liberty, any kind of mortality, economic plenty etc. Yet people have never been so angry and felt so oppressed; here in America Bernie Sanders made a political career out of making people feel like they're helpless and screwed by rich bogeymen.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...-arts-colleges

Yep, that's an interesting quote, thanks.

[Two Utes]

This phenomenon, which I think most definitely is real, explains much of what is going on in current America and the world including the bizarre forms of student unrest (I got this quote out of a New Yorker article on that subject). If you study and have lived as long as I have you realize that, in general, things have never been as good for humans worldwide and in America as they are today. By any measure--civil rights, liberty, any kind of mortality, economic plenty etc. Yet people have never been so angry and felt so oppressed; here in America Bernie Sanders made a political career out of making people feel like they're helpless and screwed by rich bogeymen.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...-arts-colleges

It would be nice if the author could write like a normal human being. Otherwise, pretty damn good article. Many college campuses are very frightening places, and not for the reasons students think.

They should be wary. The work place is beginning to separate from those campuses.

[Diehard Ute]

It would be nice if the author could write like a normal human being. Otherwise, pretty damn good article. Many college campuses are very frightening places.

They should be wary. The work place is beginning to separate from those campuses.

It was a bit shocking to me to see their belief that grades should be gifted simply because they're protesting....and then they should be paid to protest.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Two Utes]

It was a bit shocking to me to see their belief that grades should be gifted simply because they're protesting....and then they should be paid to protest.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They need a living wage and we just don't understand. Holy shit.

[SeattleUte]

It would be nice if the author could write like a normal human being. Otherwise, pretty damn good article. Many college campuses are very frightening places, and not for the reasons students think.

They should be wary. The work place is beginning to separate from those campuses.

It's the New Yorker. How can it not be great writing.

[chrisrenrut]

So I'm trying to follow the logic here, but I have admittedly just been aware of this from a distance. The narrative is that there has been a spike in the number of gay LDS suicides, correct? If that's true, what is the driving factor behind the spike in suicides? I mean, it's not like the LDS church was super sympathetic to and supportive of homosexuality and then suddenly changed direction. If anything, the LDS church has softened its position and made more inclusive statements recently than ever in the past. So what has happened to cause the spike, because I don't see a logical argument for saying that it's the LDS church's approach to homosexuality. And by the way, if there is a significantly higher number of suicides in the gay LDS community then that is a very concerning issue that should be addressed, but I'm trying to understand if there is something that is causing a spike that needs to be examined.

If there is a spike, my first thought is that society as a whole has dramatically changed their views on LGBT lifestyle in the last 5-10 years. What used to be taboo and shameful everywhere is now only taboo and shamefully in the eyes of the church (and the persons family as a result). I could see some young folks finding the confusion of their natural feelings, societies acceptance (maybe even pressure?), contacted with the church's position harder to accept than the previous paradigm.

Just a guess on my part. I have a hard time putting myself in their shoes, so to speak. I also wonder if there is a spike in young Mormon LGBT, or if social media is just shining a brighter light on the issue than before.

[Rocker Ute]

If there is a spike, my first thought is that society as a whole has dramatically changed their views on LGBT lifestyle in the last 5-10 years. What used to be taboo and shameful everywhere is now only taboo and shamefully in the eyes of the church (and the persons family as a result). I could see some young folks finding the confusion of their natural feelings, societies acceptance (maybe even pressure?), contacted with the church's position harder to accept than the previous paradigm.

Just a guess on my part. I have a hard time putting myself in their shoes, so to speak. I also wonder if there is a spike in young Mormon LGBT, or if social media is just shining a brighter light on the issue than before.

One death is too many, simply put. It is tragic if one's home life and church life is such that it creates enough pressure that anyone would want to take their life.

As for the spike there have been some unverified numbers flying around. At one time they were reporting 30+ LGBT/LDS teen suicides at the end of the year in Utah. The main problem is the state only reported 10 suicides total, so it is hard to know what numbers are right. But we have a responsibility to treat it like an epidemic and we need to think that way individually. Each one of us can let people we know in these situation know that they are loved and wanted and valued and needed. I was happy to see a young woman who just came out a few weeks previously (after she served a mission) come to church to hear her sister speak. People literally lined up to hug her after sacrament meeting and let her know she was loved and they cared about her just as they always did. I hope every LDS congregation can do the same.

[UtahsMrSports]

Some folks pin it on the november announcement about children of gay parents not being able to be baptized. Like you guys have said, hard to get anylegitimate data to prove or disprove.

[sancho]

Some folks pin it on the november announcement about children of gay parents not being able to be baptized. Like you guys have said, hard to get anylegitimate data to prove or disprove.

That would be doubly tragic because the handbook change turned out to not be such a much. The blame would lie on the extremely poor roll out from the Church and on the hysterical social media overreaction.

[LA Ute]

That would be doubly tragic because the handbook change turned out to not be such a much. The blame would lie on the extremely poor roll out from the Church and on the hysterical social media overreaction.

Someone leaked the new policy to Dehlin just minutes after it was finalized. I am sure someone in church public affairs regrets not being prepared for such an event. Someone in a position of influence should have said,"Hold on, this one is going to cause a reaction, let's get out ahead of it."

I agree with Rocker. I have close friends who've lost children to suicide and it's horrible. The impact is widespread and lasting. A brilliant and talented high school classmate of mine committed suicide and over 40 years later that loss still haunts all of us who knew him.

[Two Utes]

Someone leaked the new policy to Dehlin just minutes after it was finalized. I am sure someone in church public affairs regrets not being prepared for such an event. Someone in a position of influence should have said,"Hold on, this one is going to cause a reaction, let's get out ahead of it."

I agree with Rocker. I have close friends who've lost children to suicide and it's horrible. The impact is widespread and lasting. A brilliant and talented high school classmate of mine committed suicide and over 40 years later that loss still haunts all of us who knew him.

On the issue of suicides, according to the Trib, the suicide rate among teens in Utah has skyrocketed overall and not just among the gay population. I'm not sure what the problem is, but if I had to guess, social media doesn't help. I think there is a perception with the youth that there is this big world that is always looking right at them (when in reality most of us know that very few people really give a shit about any one of us individually). So, when something happens to you and you think the whole world is judging you, it may cause problems. I also think kids aren't as well equipped in (or tolerant to) dealing with anxiety. (Our parenting style probably isn't helping). I have a friend who is a bishop in a "young adults" ward and he told me he is stunned at the number of young adults who come to him about the massive anxiety they are suffering from.

Most of my life I suffered from massive anxiety. I just thought it was part of life.

Suicide is an extremely irrational act. Your perceptions of life have got to be way off to commit such an act.

[Diehard Ute]

On the issue of suicides, according to the Trib, the suicide rate in teens in Utah has skyrocketed overall and not just among the gay population. I'm not sure what the problem is, but if I had to guess, social media doesn't help. I think there is a perception with the youth that there is this big world that is always looking right at them (when in reality most of us know that very few people really give a shit about any one of us individually). So, when something happens to you and you think the whole world is judging you, it may cause problems. I also think kids aren't as well equipped in (or tolerant to) dealing with anxiety. I have a friend who is a bishop in a "young adults" ward and he told me he is stunned at the number of young adults who come to him about the massive anxiety they are suffering from.

Most of my life I suffered from massive anxiety. I just thought it was part of life.

Suicide is an extremely irrational act. Your perceptions of life have got to be way off to commit such an act.

I think some of our societal shifts are certainly affecting this.

In sports the past idea was you had to learn to lose in order to be a good winner. Now it's just you have to try.

I think sometimes we've gone so far into the idea that everything should be warm and fuzzy that we don't teach good coping strategies to our youth. So when things do go bad they're left no knowing what to do

I would also agree social media has changed things. When I grew up home was a safe haven. Those who wanted to try and make me miserable couldn't do that at my house. With social media there is no safe haven as long as that phone is in a kids hand. Technology is awesome and awful at the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

On the issue of suicides, according to the Trib, the suicide rate among teens in Utah has skyrocketed overall and not just among the gay population. I'm not sure what the problem is, but if I had to guess, social media doesn't help. I think there is a perception with the youth that there is this big world that is always looking right at them (when in reality most of us know that very few people really give a shit about any one of us individually). So, when something happens to you and you think the whole world is judging you, it may cause problems. I also think kids aren't as well equipped in (or tolerant to) dealing with anxiety. (Our parenting style probably isn't helping). I have a friend who is a bishop in a "young adults" ward and he told me he is stunned at the number of young adults who come to him about the massive anxiety they are suffering from.

Most of my life I suffered from massive anxiety. I just thought it was part of life.

Suicide is an extremely irrational act. Your perceptions of life have got to be way off to commit such an act.

The study, found here, actually notes kids being bullied at school and electronically are at the highest risk factor, so fits in somewhat with your notion on social media. I am shocked at how intense online bullying can be. A little aside but a couple of years ago on the Utenation Facebook group I made a joke about one of the posters there who wanted Whittingham fired. I hadn't bothered looking at his profile and didn't realize he was actually just a high school kid (to my shame) but he and his friends went on this hyper-intense attack on me through Facebook. I of course didn't care but I was surprised at the volume and intensity of what they were trying to do to me, and just thought of being a kid and receiving that kind of an attack, it gave me a great deal of sympathy for kids.

Anyway, I agree with you. Despite giving lip service to diversity and being different there is actually immense pressure on kids directly and indirectly to conform to norms through a false belief that they are being watched by everyone constantly.

[LA Ute]

Suicide is an extremely irrational act. Your perceptions of life have got to be way off to commit such an act.

I personally think that almost all people who commit suicide are suffering from some mental disorder -- depression, most often -- that overcomes the human survival instinct. There are exceptions -- cowards, like Hermann Goering, and other who make the decision rationally.

I think some of our societal shifts are certainly affecting this.

In sports the past idea was you had to learn to lose in order to be a good winner. Now it's just you have to try.

I hope this practice dies out. Our kids got the obligatory participation trophies from youth sports. They never cared about them and we've thrown those trophies out. They did care about the trophies they actually won or were part of winning.

[Solon]

Suicide is an extremely irrational act. Your perceptions of life have got to be way off to commit such an act.

I personally think that almost all people who commit suicide are suffering from some mental disorder -- depression, most often -- that overcomes the human survival instinct. There are exceptions -- cowards, like Hermann Goering, and other who make the decision rationally.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I agree with both of you for most cases.
In some cases, though, I think it is a supremely rational act. The freedom to choose when & where to end one's life is an important right to me (provided one is making a deliberate decision rather than an impulsive act).

The movement to allow terminally ill or permanently (severely) disabled people to end their lives on their own terms is gaining momentum.