A certain Nick Einbender took to the facebook page of a group styling themselves “Mormons Building Bridges” and catalogued some correspondence he had with a currently-serving Bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Nick has an LDS background,[1] is a dentist and is married to another man.  This bishop was a classmate of his in dental school, and wrote to Nick “because [he] want[s] to learn how [he] can be a better disciple of Jesus Christ and love all of God’s children” and because his “stake president has asked that all the bishops in our stake lead a discussion on September 30th on same sex attraction.”  Apparently this bishop knew that Nick “could teach [him] some of what [he] needs to know to be more Christ-like.”

After some back and forth, which apparently included some push back from this unnamed bishop, Nick concluded by stating:

“And if you read these words and doubt, I will ask you this: what is the fruit of the church’s relationship with the LGBTQ community within and outside the LDS faith? It is suicide, broken families, confusion, bigotry, cheating spouses, psychologically scarred children, hate toward all religion, the list could continue for paragraphs. This is the fruit of truth? This is the fruit of doctrine straight from God? It is not. It is false, it is floundering, it is gravely mistaken and many are those who have paid the price.”

Elsewhere, Nick asks, “Is this a result of them simply being LGBTQ or is this a direct result of them internalizing the doctrines of the church regarding LGBTQ individuals and the self loathing/self hatred and harm that results? By their fruits ye shall know them.”

This is not a unique argument, but it is the most recent time I’ve seen it asserted.  This strikes me as close minded and more than a bit simplistic.  After all, “suicide, broken families, confusion, bigotry (as they see it), cheating spouses, psychologically scarred children and hate” are found in and around the gay community regardless of religious affiliation, or even when none is present.  It is not like we only find these “fruits” with respect to lgbt persons who have some affiliation or connection with the Church.  The more reasonable conclusions are that these are the universal fruits of adopting a gay identity and lifestyle.  So, to lay this at the feet of the Church’s teachings or culture is simplistic and doesn’t bear scrutiny.

Rather, the fact of the matter is that active Latter-day Saints are much less likely to commit suicide than others.  One long term study found that young LDS men “who closely adhere to the dictates of their faith,” which would presumably include the law of chastity, have suicide rates that are seven times lower than inactive members or nonmembers in Utah.

Looking at religiousity as a whole, one study surveying the literature in 2015 (available on the National Institutes of Health website) stated that:

“Recent studies have investigated the relative impact of religious affiliation and religiosity on mental health outcomes in LGBT adults (e.g., Barnes & Meyer, 2012; Harris et al., 2008; Kralovec et al., 2012; Shilo & Savaya, 2012). Findings from these studies have been generally inconclusive in determining the aspects of religiosity that are associated with mental health outcomes. One study found that, for LGB adults, suicidal thoughts had no association with a religious affiliation (Kralovec et al., 2012). In fact, a number of studies have found that measures of religiosity, across religious affiliations (e.g. Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist), were not associated with any mental health outcomes for LGB adults.”

The study went on to look at the results of an internet survey, sponsored by an lgbt rights group, using a self-selected and poorly controlled group to look at the effects of internalized homophobia from a religious upbringing.  Despite the deck being stacked against religion, the study found “leaving one’s religion is associated with a decrease in internalized homophobia. However, while this expected relationship emerged, we also found that leaving one’s religion was associated with a higher risk of suicidal thoughts.”  Far from indicating that suicide is a fruit of religion, the numbers indicate otherwise.  This is especially so, as the prior study shows young men who are active LDS are seven times less likely to commit suicide than others.

Likewise, every broken family I have known that had an lgbt nexus were the result of one member of the family abandoning the rest to pursue what they term to be an “authentic” life, as if there wasn’t anything real to the family they left.  The simple fact is that self-loathing and self-hatred and suicide are found among gays that are completely and entirely affirmed by their family and loved ones, and that are completely disconnected from religion.  The same is true of the rest of those fruits.  None can be laid at the feet of the Church, while they all result from the insistence on some to identify as gay and engage in the associated lifestyle.

What is really at issue in these discussions is simply the conflict between two irreconcilable positions, and Nick seems to understand this well.  He identifies the “real fundamental issue/questions that needs to be asked [as] ‘are we right as a church on this issue?’”  Or, to put it another way, have the brethren been led by God in declaring that all sex outside of a marriage between a man and woman is sinful?  This, to me, seems to be one of those litmus tests of faithfulness, more particularly today than ever.  IF you can’t accept this, it should come as no surprise that you will find yourself outside of the Church on this, and for good reason.

[1] I honestly don’t know what Nick’s current status in the Church is and I haven’t taken the time to find out.  He appears to be somewhat active, but given Church policy regarding those in same sex marriages, I would not be surprised to find that he isn’t a member in full fellowship at this point.

One thought on “A Response to Nick Einbender”

  1. Spot on! Blaming the LDS Church is a major cop out, people are relying on studies that haven’t been peer reviewed and unverified or verifiable testimonials that have more to do with perception than reality.

    Thank you for this!

Leave a Reply