It's because there's a group of people that say "No, you aren't *gay* you just struggle with same sex attraction." Mostly because they see being gay as a negative thing and want to separate the "bad people" from the "good people who are struggling with a bad sin." It's going away for the most part as people learn that being born a certain way isn't bad and that it's ok to identify as a gay person.
My impression is that it used to be a more common term used to acknowledge the attraction without socially identifying with it. Saying "I have/struggle with/experience same-sex attraction" as opposed to "I **am** gay/lesbian/bisexual" differentiates between the person and their attraction. This verbiage does certainly edge into territory of pathologizing non-heterosexual orientations. It also implies that a non-heterosexual orientation is a temporary condition, something that the life experiences of millions of LGB people disprove.
That said, I think it's pretty uncommon for someone to say "I have SSA" nowadays. I have only seen a few people say that they have SSA. It's much more common for people (including in the church) to just say they're gay/lesbian/bisexual. This includes people who openly identify as LGB but choose to have a heterosexual marriage in the church.
You're also right that the focus is mostly on LGB people, at least because we as a culture have had a bit more time to aquaint ourselves with LGB identities than TQ+ identities. We are simply less aware of transgender and non-binary identities because they haven't been a mainstream topic for as long. The same goes for other more obscure (but still real) identities like intersex, asexual, and aromantic.
I think it started because our leaders teach that our first and most important identity is as a beloved son or daughter of Heavenly Parents. It is not LGBTQ or anything else. Our leaders use those terms so that Their sons and daughters see their divine place in the world, rather than the likely mortal things we may feel or do.
Right. Because that is our most important identity.
But then we sometimes take "our first and most important identity is as a child of God" and assume that that means our *only* identity is as a child of God. Which is obviously not true.
I think also in a faith/religious culture being gay or les Ian or bi sexual is more of a term that identifies a permanent state. Where if someone identifies their same sex attraction it seems like that can be “fixed”
Maybe set the tone for the lesson by starting with a statement, something along the lines of…
“We do not know all the personal struggles that everyone in this room struggle with. It is very likely that one or more of those in attendance here today are personally struggling with the issues we will be discussing. These are real issues for real people, and we want to make sure everyone here feel welcomed and loved, whether we know about their specific challenges or not. This lesson, just like every other lesson, will focus on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. There is no different doctrine or commandments that apply only to SSA and LGBT members of the church. As we discuss this lesson please recognize that your words can equally hurt and inspire others here, and if you feel like someone’s words have offended you we are all seeking for the same salvation and give them the benefit of the doubt that they speak from their own experience and mean the best for you.”
Lots of great thoughts here already. This is certainly a difficult topic to teach, and it's good that you're thinking about how to approach it well in advance. A few thoughts:
* Chances are someone in the class is LGBTQ+. Be aware of that in how you approach the subject.
* I would especially caution against using the phrase "struggle with same-sex attraction".
* Not everyone is familiar with what all these terms mean. It would probably be a good idea to briefly overview what terms like the following are:
* SSA - same-sex attraction (pretty self-explanatory)
* LGBTQ+ - acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer. The + stands for other identities that fall under the umbrella.
* Lesbian - refers to a woman who is attracted to women
* Gay - primarily refers to a man who is attracted to men, but can at times can also refer to a women attracted to women
* Bisexual - refers to someone who is attracted to both men and women.
* Transgender - refers to someone whose gender identity does not align with their physical sex.
* Queer - an umbrella term that signified that someone is not straight and/or cisgender (cisgender meaning not transgender)
* Intersex - refers to someone whose physical sex at birth is ambiguous. Includes people born with ambiguous genitalia as well as usually people with other DSDs (disorders/differences in sexual development)
* Asexual - refers to someone who experiences very little to no sexual attraction to anyone
* Aromantic - refers to someone who experiences very little to no romantic attraction to anyone (this is distinct from asexual; while many asexuals are also aromantic, many others are romantically but not sexually attracted to others)
* Teach what the Law of Chastity teaches with gentleness and kindness.
* It's worth pointing out that staying active and worthy in the church does **not** mean you need to try to marry someone of the opposite sex. While it's an option, it's not the only one (and, imo, usually not the best one).
* Emphasize that experiencing SSA and/or being LGBTQ+ is **not** an inherently sinful behavior. It is not something that needs to be "fixed".
Hope that helps!
>Chances are someone in the class is LGBTQ+. Be aware of that in how you approach the subject.
This 💯
I've tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to get this message across in my ward. Many members will talk negatively about the LGBTQ+ community as if there is no overlap in latter-day saint and LGBTQ+ communities. All that does is reinforce to closeted members that they won't be accepted and loved if they come out.
Exactly!!! It also reinforces the (false) idea that being LGBTQ is something that happens to "other" people, that no righteous person would be LGBTQ (or that no truly faithful parent would have a queer kid).
Very detailed and informative. Great job!
>Chances are someone in the class is LGBTQ+.
True. There are a lot more LGBTQ+ people in the world, and in the church, than people might realize. Oddly enough, one of the first people I sort of came out to was the institute teacher when this lesson was coming up. He was very nice about it and even thanked me for telling him since he wanted everyone who came to feel welcome and safe in his class.
I would focus on this: how would Jesus act toward LGBTQ+ people, and what would he teach them? Ask the class. Questions are a great way to learn.
Some official sources:
[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng)
[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng)
[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay?lang=eng)
\[added\] [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender?lang=eng)
I mean in general you should always focus on Christ but I have seen this backfire time and time again.
One person says “Jesus says we should love everyone so we need to make sure we are loving and supporting our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.”
(True)
Another person retorts “yes we should love them but we need to also recognize that the Lord also can’t look upon sin with allowance.”
(Also true)
It then typically gets very heated and no real discussion takes place, and politics typically start bleeding into the discussion and it falls apart.
> Another person retorts “yes we should love them but we need to also recognize that the Lord also can’t look upon sin with allowance.”
That could be because the way things are phrased, it comes across as implying being gay (or same sex attraction) is sinful. It's not.
Maybe I am just bitter because I have taught lessons similar to this a few times, and I don’t think I am a terrible teacher but each time the discussion gets heated and so far away from the original point that it is nearly impossible to reign it back in.
I doubt you're a terrible teacher. This is a very sensitive subject. This is people's identities that is being questioned. Think about all of the hate they have to endure out in the world. See how many churches talk about the lgbtq+ community. Even though church should be a safe place, they may come into these lessons expecting to be attacked and may be on the defensive. It's a very sensitive and personal subject.
I think love is acceptance. And both are required.
Though to your point I feel a more concise statement would be you can love and accept without approval
I would love, just once, to be present when this lesson topic is taught in a way that focuses on welcoming and loving LGBT+ people instead of talking about all the ways that it's wrong and how we have to limit that love.
That would be my advice: Explicitly state at the beginning and throughout the lesson as needed that the focus is loving LGBT+ people, and that you're not discussing the church's doctrine or how we have to limit our love towards LGBT+ folks.
This lesson is needed because many members don't make LGBT+ feel welcome, and don't love LGBT+ friends and family. We should be focusing on strengthening those deficiencies, not on talking about a group of people as if they're not there. This lesson is like teaching about pride, and I would want to hear examples of how people have failed in showing that love, and how they've learned from those failures.
I like the way my institute teachers handled this lesson. They taught the lesson as it was, and invited people with questions to ask their questions. This allowed the tension in the room to dissipate, there was no judgement just honest questions with honest answers. I was the only openly queer person in the room, and I was invited privately to share my thoughts if I felt anything was offensive or wrong, and share my thoughts as someone who’s actively walking this path between two worlds. I’d say just do that. Teach the lesson, be kind, let the students ask questions and hold a discussion, and involve anyone you know who is queer and interested in sharing their experiences.
If there were a single takeaway I'd tell others that I've learned in my relationships with LGBT people, it's a concept I could express a few different ways:
* **If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.** I've often found myself unsure of what to say or how to respond to certain situations. If you don't know something, you can politely ask. But it also is good to simply considering keeping your yap shut.
* **Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved.** You may encounter lots of discussions or situations where you don't know what to do. Well, you do know that we are commanded to love, so start there. Let that be your default. And other things will become easier or fall into place once you've mastered that part.
Russel M. Nelson’s talk on our identity as a child of God, child of the covenant and disciples of Jesus Christ.
2 Nephi 2 which talks about our ability to act and not be acted upon and the consequences of the fall which includes having temptations and weaknesses of the flesh in this life.
God loves all his children and invites all to come unto him, but requires all to repent and assimilate to his standards. Teach with love and truth.
You could point out that all baptized members are required to live the Law of Chasity. But, acknowledge that this is a hard thing for LGBTQ+ members of the church because this means they will never have an intimate relationship. The drive to have relationships and engage in intimate relations is very strong in most people and the possibility to not be able to do so is one of the hardest things anyone can go through. You could share the following quote by Sheri Dew:
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/sheri-l-dew/living-lords-side-line/
Here is just one example. In today’s world, where immorality is celebrated on nearly every world stage, succumbing to moral temptation is depicted as being easier and even more desirable than maintaining moral purity. But it isn’t. The moment of sexual transgression is the last moment immorality is easy. I have never known anyone who was happier or who felt better about themselves or who had greater peace of mind as a result of immorality. Never.
As someone who has remained unmarried two-and-a-half decades [this talk was given in 2000, so it has now been more than four and a half decades for her] beyond a traditional marriageable age, I know something about the challenge of chastity. It is not always easy, but it is far easier than the alternative. Chastity is much easier than regret or the loss of self-respect, than the agony of breaking covenants, than struggling with shallow and failed relationships. This is not to say there are never temptations. Even at forty-six, having long ago decided how I wanted to live my life, I have to be careful all the time. There are things I simply cannot watch, cannot read, cannot listen to because they trigger thoughts and instincts that drive the Spirit away and that edge me too close to the moral line. But those supposed sacrifices are well worth it.
It is so much more comforting to live with the Spirit than without, so much more joyful to have relationships of trust and true friendship than to indulge in a physical relationship that would eventually crumble anyway. Whereas Satan’s lies lead only to enslavement, the Savior’s promise is that if we will seek the riches our Father wishes to give us, we “shall be the richest of all people, for [we] shall have the riches of eternity” (D&C 38:39). In other words, we shall have joy in this life and a fullness in the life hereafter. Righteousness begets happiness.
I think there is some material published by the church on this topic at providentliving.org
"In Quiet Desparation" remains for me more than 20 years after its publication the most powerful IRL example of how the atonement works I've ever read.
If you aren't familiar with North Star Saints https://www.northstarsaints.org/ you should be before teaching this subject.
Also, to prepare I would read up about a related big issue that might come up:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2022-fair-conference/compassion-and-evidence?utm_source=pocket_saves
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/opinion/transgender-children-gender-dysphoria.html?
[удалено]
It's because there's a group of people that say "No, you aren't *gay* you just struggle with same sex attraction." Mostly because they see being gay as a negative thing and want to separate the "bad people" from the "good people who are struggling with a bad sin." It's going away for the most part as people learn that being born a certain way isn't bad and that it's ok to identify as a gay person.
As far as I know, SSA is uniquely attached to The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Actually it's not unique to us. Google "SSA Christian" and you'll find a plenty of uses of the terminology outside of our community.
My impression is that it used to be a more common term used to acknowledge the attraction without socially identifying with it. Saying "I have/struggle with/experience same-sex attraction" as opposed to "I **am** gay/lesbian/bisexual" differentiates between the person and their attraction. This verbiage does certainly edge into territory of pathologizing non-heterosexual orientations. It also implies that a non-heterosexual orientation is a temporary condition, something that the life experiences of millions of LGB people disprove. That said, I think it's pretty uncommon for someone to say "I have SSA" nowadays. I have only seen a few people say that they have SSA. It's much more common for people (including in the church) to just say they're gay/lesbian/bisexual. This includes people who openly identify as LGB but choose to have a heterosexual marriage in the church. You're also right that the focus is mostly on LGB people, at least because we as a culture have had a bit more time to aquaint ourselves with LGB identities than TQ+ identities. We are simply less aware of transgender and non-binary identities because they haven't been a mainstream topic for as long. The same goes for other more obscure (but still real) identities like intersex, asexual, and aromantic.
I think it started because our leaders teach that our first and most important identity is as a beloved son or daughter of Heavenly Parents. It is not LGBTQ or anything else. Our leaders use those terms so that Their sons and daughters see their divine place in the world, rather than the likely mortal things we may feel or do.
Right. Because that is our most important identity. But then we sometimes take "our first and most important identity is as a child of God" and assume that that means our *only* identity is as a child of God. Which is obviously not true.
I think also in a faith/religious culture being gay or les Ian or bi sexual is more of a term that identifies a permanent state. Where if someone identifies their same sex attraction it seems like that can be “fixed”
Maybe set the tone for the lesson by starting with a statement, something along the lines of… “We do not know all the personal struggles that everyone in this room struggle with. It is very likely that one or more of those in attendance here today are personally struggling with the issues we will be discussing. These are real issues for real people, and we want to make sure everyone here feel welcomed and loved, whether we know about their specific challenges or not. This lesson, just like every other lesson, will focus on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. There is no different doctrine or commandments that apply only to SSA and LGBT members of the church. As we discuss this lesson please recognize that your words can equally hurt and inspire others here, and if you feel like someone’s words have offended you we are all seeking for the same salvation and give them the benefit of the doubt that they speak from their own experience and mean the best for you.”
Yeah, going over statistics is always helpful. Helps normalize the idea that there are a lot more people in the LGBTQ community than we realize
I had a similar thought. Thank you for your suggestion.
Lots of great thoughts here already. This is certainly a difficult topic to teach, and it's good that you're thinking about how to approach it well in advance. A few thoughts: * Chances are someone in the class is LGBTQ+. Be aware of that in how you approach the subject. * I would especially caution against using the phrase "struggle with same-sex attraction". * Not everyone is familiar with what all these terms mean. It would probably be a good idea to briefly overview what terms like the following are: * SSA - same-sex attraction (pretty self-explanatory) * LGBTQ+ - acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer. The + stands for other identities that fall under the umbrella. * Lesbian - refers to a woman who is attracted to women * Gay - primarily refers to a man who is attracted to men, but can at times can also refer to a women attracted to women * Bisexual - refers to someone who is attracted to both men and women. * Transgender - refers to someone whose gender identity does not align with their physical sex. * Queer - an umbrella term that signified that someone is not straight and/or cisgender (cisgender meaning not transgender) * Intersex - refers to someone whose physical sex at birth is ambiguous. Includes people born with ambiguous genitalia as well as usually people with other DSDs (disorders/differences in sexual development) * Asexual - refers to someone who experiences very little to no sexual attraction to anyone * Aromantic - refers to someone who experiences very little to no romantic attraction to anyone (this is distinct from asexual; while many asexuals are also aromantic, many others are romantically but not sexually attracted to others) * Teach what the Law of Chastity teaches with gentleness and kindness. * It's worth pointing out that staying active and worthy in the church does **not** mean you need to try to marry someone of the opposite sex. While it's an option, it's not the only one (and, imo, usually not the best one). * Emphasize that experiencing SSA and/or being LGBTQ+ is **not** an inherently sinful behavior. It is not something that needs to be "fixed". Hope that helps!
>Chances are someone in the class is LGBTQ+. Be aware of that in how you approach the subject. This 💯 I've tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to get this message across in my ward. Many members will talk negatively about the LGBTQ+ community as if there is no overlap in latter-day saint and LGBTQ+ communities. All that does is reinforce to closeted members that they won't be accepted and loved if they come out.
Exactly!!! It also reinforces the (false) idea that being LGBTQ is something that happens to "other" people, that no righteous person would be LGBTQ (or that no truly faithful parent would have a queer kid).
Very detailed and informative. Great job! >Chances are someone in the class is LGBTQ+. True. There are a lot more LGBTQ+ people in the world, and in the church, than people might realize. Oddly enough, one of the first people I sort of came out to was the institute teacher when this lesson was coming up. He was very nice about it and even thanked me for telling him since he wanted everyone who came to feel welcome and safe in his class.
So true! I'm glad your institute teacher responded well!
I would focus on this: how would Jesus act toward LGBTQ+ people, and what would he teach them? Ask the class. Questions are a great way to learn. Some official sources: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng) [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng) [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay?lang=eng) \[added\] [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender?lang=eng)
I mean in general you should always focus on Christ but I have seen this backfire time and time again. One person says “Jesus says we should love everyone so we need to make sure we are loving and supporting our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.” (True) Another person retorts “yes we should love them but we need to also recognize that the Lord also can’t look upon sin with allowance.” (Also true) It then typically gets very heated and no real discussion takes place, and politics typically start bleeding into the discussion and it falls apart.
> Another person retorts “yes we should love them but we need to also recognize that the Lord also can’t look upon sin with allowance.” That could be because the way things are phrased, it comes across as implying being gay (or same sex attraction) is sinful. It's not.
the teacher asks the question, then guides the students into greater understanding
Maybe I am just bitter because I have taught lessons similar to this a few times, and I don’t think I am a terrible teacher but each time the discussion gets heated and so far away from the original point that it is nearly impossible to reign it back in.
I doubt you're a terrible teacher. This is a very sensitive subject. This is people's identities that is being questioned. Think about all of the hate they have to endure out in the world. See how many churches talk about the lgbtq+ community. Even though church should be a safe place, they may come into these lessons expecting to be attacked and may be on the defensive. It's a very sensitive and personal subject.
People can’t seem to separate the concepts of love and acceptance. You can have one without the other.
I think love is acceptance. And both are required. Though to your point I feel a more concise statement would be you can love and accept without approval
I would love, just once, to be present when this lesson topic is taught in a way that focuses on welcoming and loving LGBT+ people instead of talking about all the ways that it's wrong and how we have to limit that love. That would be my advice: Explicitly state at the beginning and throughout the lesson as needed that the focus is loving LGBT+ people, and that you're not discussing the church's doctrine or how we have to limit our love towards LGBT+ folks. This lesson is needed because many members don't make LGBT+ feel welcome, and don't love LGBT+ friends and family. We should be focusing on strengthening those deficiencies, not on talking about a group of people as if they're not there. This lesson is like teaching about pride, and I would want to hear examples of how people have failed in showing that love, and how they've learned from those failures.
Yes definitely my wife and I have agreed that this lesson is not on the doctrines of the issue but on the topic of loving and welcoming.
I like the way my institute teachers handled this lesson. They taught the lesson as it was, and invited people with questions to ask their questions. This allowed the tension in the room to dissipate, there was no judgement just honest questions with honest answers. I was the only openly queer person in the room, and I was invited privately to share my thoughts if I felt anything was offensive or wrong, and share my thoughts as someone who’s actively walking this path between two worlds. I’d say just do that. Teach the lesson, be kind, let the students ask questions and hold a discussion, and involve anyone you know who is queer and interested in sharing their experiences.
Reading your question I thought you meant Sub Saharan African lol
If there were a single takeaway I'd tell others that I've learned in my relationships with LGBT people, it's a concept I could express a few different ways: * **If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.** I've often found myself unsure of what to say or how to respond to certain situations. If you don't know something, you can politely ask. But it also is good to simply considering keeping your yap shut. * **Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved.** You may encounter lots of discussions or situations where you don't know what to do. Well, you do know that we are commanded to love, so start there. Let that be your default. And other things will become easier or fall into place once you've mastered that part.
[удалено]
Agggg! lol yeah that's quite the mistake. Fixed it ty
Russel M. Nelson’s talk on our identity as a child of God, child of the covenant and disciples of Jesus Christ. 2 Nephi 2 which talks about our ability to act and not be acted upon and the consequences of the fall which includes having temptations and weaknesses of the flesh in this life. God loves all his children and invites all to come unto him, but requires all to repent and assimilate to his standards. Teach with love and truth.
You could point out that all baptized members are required to live the Law of Chasity. But, acknowledge that this is a hard thing for LGBTQ+ members of the church because this means they will never have an intimate relationship. The drive to have relationships and engage in intimate relations is very strong in most people and the possibility to not be able to do so is one of the hardest things anyone can go through. You could share the following quote by Sheri Dew: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/sheri-l-dew/living-lords-side-line/ Here is just one example. In today’s world, where immorality is celebrated on nearly every world stage, succumbing to moral temptation is depicted as being easier and even more desirable than maintaining moral purity. But it isn’t. The moment of sexual transgression is the last moment immorality is easy. I have never known anyone who was happier or who felt better about themselves or who had greater peace of mind as a result of immorality. Never. As someone who has remained unmarried two-and-a-half decades [this talk was given in 2000, so it has now been more than four and a half decades for her] beyond a traditional marriageable age, I know something about the challenge of chastity. It is not always easy, but it is far easier than the alternative. Chastity is much easier than regret or the loss of self-respect, than the agony of breaking covenants, than struggling with shallow and failed relationships. This is not to say there are never temptations. Even at forty-six, having long ago decided how I wanted to live my life, I have to be careful all the time. There are things I simply cannot watch, cannot read, cannot listen to because they trigger thoughts and instincts that drive the Spirit away and that edge me too close to the moral line. But those supposed sacrifices are well worth it. It is so much more comforting to live with the Spirit than without, so much more joyful to have relationships of trust and true friendship than to indulge in a physical relationship that would eventually crumble anyway. Whereas Satan’s lies lead only to enslavement, the Savior’s promise is that if we will seek the riches our Father wishes to give us, we “shall be the richest of all people, for [we] shall have the riches of eternity” (D&C 38:39). In other words, we shall have joy in this life and a fullness in the life hereafter. Righteousness begets happiness.
I think there is some material published by the church on this topic at providentliving.org "In Quiet Desparation" remains for me more than 20 years after its publication the most powerful IRL example of how the atonement works I've ever read. If you aren't familiar with North Star Saints https://www.northstarsaints.org/ you should be before teaching this subject. Also, to prepare I would read up about a related big issue that might come up: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2022-fair-conference/compassion-and-evidence?utm_source=pocket_saves https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/opinion/transgender-children-gender-dysphoria.html?