While returning to the US for Christmas, I looked at the selection of movies on my United Airlines flight and noted that one of their many films dealt with a specific religion, mine. The film, Believer, had this description (listed also at UnitedPrivateScreening.com):
Believer follows Mormon Dan Reynolds, frontman for the Grammy® Award-winning band Imagine Dragons, as he takes on a new mission to explore how the Mormon Church treats its LGBTQ members.
One can easily guess that this documentary, tracing Dan’s decision to launch the LoveLoud festival in Utah to support LGBTQ people, is intended to be critical of the Church. It was critical, but I’ll have to admit I thought it was well done, interesting, and made some important points. I enjoyed much of the film, in spite of occasional serious objections to what was said. Further, I really enjoyed learning more about Dan Reynolds and his life. I found him to be quite likable and was especially impressed with his wife (now ex-wife, sadly), Aja Volkman. Both are fascinating people. I am deeply sorry that they are now divorced.
 |
| Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons |
First, a disclaimer. I’m not a big fan of popular music and have only been to a few big-name concerts in my life, mostly in my youth, including John Denver, Elton John, Seals and Croft, and most recently, Imagine Dragons, which two of my sons introduced me to. The Imagine Dragons concert was a couple years ago in Shanghai. Spectacular! I’ve only bought a tiny handful of rock albums, with Imagine Dragons being the latest (purchased a few years before the concert) and perhaps my most listened to. So I’m a fan of Imagine Dragons. I am also a fan and member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And in spite of being frequently condemned for my stance as a conservative Latter-day Saint, which apparently makes me a troglodyte and hater of all things progressive, I count among my friends several people who are gay, lesbian, and transgender and value my time and association with them, in spite of many differences and some things I cannot adequately understand based on my inexperience and my views.
Second, I hope all of us, whatever our social, political, or religious beliefs, will love and be kind to those who are LGBTQ. May we all oppose hate. I want those with suicidal thoughts to get the support and love they need, and to know that their lives matter. I will agree with John Dehlin on this point. (If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255.)
As for opposing hate, however, I worry that some seem to define hate as any anything they disagree with when it comes to their political or social agenda. To question a redefinition of marriage will be inappropriately viewed as hate by some, along with opposition to unrestricted abortion and a host of other programs, policies, and agendas. The inability of people on both sides of many issues to have civil conversations with political, social, or religious opponents is highly troubling to me. There can be well-reasoned alternative views founded on something other than hate. Ironically, some troubling displays of hate, anger, and outright violence in our society can be found among groups loudly proclaiming their opposition to what they call hate.
Third, my initial thought was curiosity about United Airlines and their selection criteria. Was there now a new and welcome openness about religion in their offerings, with a variety of films dealing with specific religions? As I thumbed through their extensive list of offerings, I didn’t see anything that might be viewed as a critical expose of, say, the problems in certain variations of Islam or Islam’s attitudes and treatments of LGBTQ members. Was this some kind of oversight at United? Maybe that will be next month.
I also didn’t notice any films offered that delve into problems within Catholicism or the harms critics might ascribe to Evangelical Protestantism and their attitudes on LGBTQ issues. Buddhism, Shintoism, Jainism, Daoism, etc. all have their problems or weaknesses, but I didn’t see any documentaries to help shame them into healthy progress. It looked like the faith often improperly called “Mormonism” is the only religious topic that United wishes to offer their viewers. Were they also playing “Meet the Mormons” (or “Meet the People Formerly Known as Mormons”)? No, the sole selection related to religion, as far as I could tell, was one that is designed to be critical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In this day of hyper-sensitive efforts to not offend others, criticizing my religion always seems like the only safe exception. For those concerned about LGBTQ issues, it should be obvious that there are larger Christian groups with similar views and large religious groups outside of Christianity with harsher views. But I suppose they lack famous rock stars among their members willing to take them on. For that, the likeable and influential Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons may be a true pioneer, and perhaps this film will be the first step in United’s own pioneering efforts to bring religious debate into their entertainment mix. I am anxious to see what other religions might be targeted on future flights, but suspect there will be many more frequent flyer miles to go before I sleep through those films.
The Right Dragon to Slay? Imagine More Data
Now about the film itself. As likable as Dan Reynolds is and as interesting as the documentary was (I loved seeing Dan’s household and family up close), and as glad I was to see some of the positive results that Reynolds’ LoveLoud festival has brought, there were some bold statements that I feel are misleading. From the beginning to the end, there are assertions that the Church and its policies are to blame for the high suicide rate among LGBTQ people in Utah. This goes without saying for many of our critics, but it also may go without solid evidence. There may be some improper assertions about the cause when there can be many complex factors. On the other hand, there definitely is a problem in Utah that needs more attention, whatever the cause, and if LoveLoud is helping Utahans to be more aware of the problem and the need for more steps to address it, then that’s terrific.
The film begins with and often repeats the statement that youth suicides have skyrocketed in Utah, and then implies or directly alleges elsewhere that the Church is to blame–a statement that is not necessarily fair or scientifically supportable. Then we have John Dehlin, featured prominently in the film, a man famed for his opposition to the Church and his tactics of encouraging criticism in others, claiming that no other place in the country has seen the tripling of suicide rates seen in Utah, and that it all began around 2007/2008, the time “when the Church declares war” on LGBTQ people. Over and over, we are told that it is the Church that is causing so many LGBTQ people in Utah to commit suicide, and that bold and brave efforts are needed to pressure the Church and educate its members so that we can, as Reynolds put it, finally get the Prophet to go pray and “get a revelation” to reverse the backward and dangerous policies of the Church and thus help the Church to do the obviously right thing.
The graph below is shown in the film as Dehlin talks about the rapid rise in suicide rates in Utah allegedly due to Church policies. This comes from the blog post, Daniel Parkinson and Michael Barker, “The LGBTQ Mormon Crisis: Responding to the Empirical Research on Suicide,” Rational Faiths, Feb 25, 2016. This post compiles a variety of evidences that seek to link Church policies and culture with Utah’s suicide problem and should be considered as we seek to understand the issues and causes of the crisis. What I find puzzling is that Dehlin insists that Utah’s serious spike in suicides in 2007-2008 with the support for Proposition 8, but it looks like 2012 is the critical year. Perhaps there is some other study that make 2007-2008 look more dramatic in its impact, but this chart doesn’t seem to fit the rhetoric. But again, regardless of the cause, that’s an ugly curve that should make all of us more aware of the risks that our youth may face.
 |
| Chart used in the film from Parkinson and Barker. Click to enlarge. |
Suicide in any group is a complex factor. In my view, it is not enough to say that half of Utah (51%) is LDS, and therefore Utah’s high suicide rate must be due to the Church, as seems to be the approach a time or two in the film. The first obvious question that must be asked is how does suicide rate among LGBTQ people vary as a function of religious affiliation and religious activity within that affiliation? Is suicide uniquely high for Latter-day Saints only? For active Latter-day Saints only? For those in active LDS families? Do the non-LDS people of Utah have much lower suicide rates? For all the quoting of statistics in the film, a plausible case against the Church is not presented. John Dehlin in a highly staged Skype video call with Dan Reynolds quotes Edmund Burke and calls for good men like Reynolds to stand up against evil (the Church or its policies), but is the Church really the source of increased suicides? Is the Church the evil dragon that brave warriors like Reynolds must fight? Perhaps we need to imagine fewer dragons and obtain more data to actually understand causes and cures, otherwise we may slay the wrong creature.
First, though, whatever the cause, the issue of suicide among LGBTQ youth is alarming, but it’s not just a Utah problem. Summarizing several studies across the US, the Trevor Project lists the following findings:
- LGB youth seriously contemplate suicide at almost three times the rate of heterosexual youth.
- LGB youth are almost five times as likely to have attempted suicide compared to heterosexual youth.
- Of all the suicide attempts made by youth, LGB youth suicide attempts were almost five times as likely to require medical treatment than those of heterosexual youth.
- Suicide attempts by LGB youth and questioning youth are 4 to 6 times more likely to result in injury, poisoning, or overdose that requires treatment from a doctor or nurse, compared to their straight peers.
- In a national study, 40% of transgender adults reported having made a suicide attempt. 92% of these individuals reported having attempted suicide before the age of 25.
- LGB youth who come from highly rejecting families are 8.4 times as likely to have attempted suicide as LGB peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection.
The last point is an important one for any family with LGB youth, LDS or otherwise. Rejection and hate will hurt. Love is essential. I can cite my own parents as a wonderful example of acceptance of love toward one of my brothers who left the Church. I believe their steady love has been a valuable factor for him, as it has been for me in my own life in times of trouble. If Dan Reynolds’ work helps LDS families remember to love their children even when they are surprised and saddened by the direction they go, whether it involves sexuality or any other issue, much good can be done.
While policies regarding same-sex marriage in the Church may understandably contribute to stress and a sense of rejection for some, the broad issue of elevated suicide for LGBTQ people is not unique to Utah Latter-day Saints or conservative Christian religions. It’s far more extensive and complicated than that. But as noted with the Parkinson and Barker report cited above, there are some indications from a variety of angles that can be used to link the Church to the problem, but here I worry that activism can influence too much of the analysis.
As a reminder of the complex nature of the issues before us and the difficulty of ascribing causation to observed trends, consider Sweden. Sweden, of course, is widely proclaimed as a progressive society and is a nation where LDS shaming and BYU expulsions are negligible factors. Nevertheless, suicide among same-sex couples is significantly higher than for opposite-sex couples. Peer-reviewed research on this issue was recently published by Charlotte Björkenstam et al. in “Suicide in married couples in Sweden: Is the risk greater in same-sex couples?,” European Journal of Epidemiology 31/7 (July 2016): 685–690. Here is the abstract:
Minority sexual orientation is a predictor of suicide ideation and attempts, though its association with suicide mortality is less clear. We capitalize on Sweden’s extensively linked databases, to investigate whether, among married individuals, same-sex marriage is associated with suicide. Using a population-based register design, we analyzed suicide risk among same-sex married women and men (n = 6456), as compared to different-sex married women and men (n = 1181723) in Sweden. We selected all newly partnered or married individuals in the intervening time between 1/1/1996 and 12/31/2009 and followed them with regard to suicide until 12/31/2011. Multivariate Poisson regression was used to calculate adjusted incidence risk ratios (IRR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). The risk of suicide was higher among same-sex married individuals as compared to different-sex married individuals (IRR 2.7, 95 % CI 1.5–4.8), after adjustment for time at risk and socioeconomic confounding. Sex-stratified analyses showed a tentatively elevated risk for same-sex married women (IRR 2.5, 95 % CI 0.8–7.7) as compared to different-sex married women. Among same-sex married men the suicide risk was nearly three-fold greater as compared to different-sex married (IRR 2.895 % CI 1.5–5.5). This holds true also after adjustment for HIV status. Even in a country with a comparatively tolerant climate regarding homosexuality such as Sweden, same-sex married individuals evidence a higher risk for suicide than other married individuals. (emphasis added)
This threefold increase in suicide for same-sex married men vs different-sex married couples in Sweden is consistent with 2015 data reported for gay/lesbian/bisexual youth in Wyoming, a state with significant LDS influence (11.6%):
In 2015 , Wyoming High School students who self-identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual were significantly more likely to report they had seriously considered attempting suicide (54%) or had attempted suicide (37%) in the past twelve months compared to students who identified as heterosexual (16 % and 11% respectively).
For suicidal thoughts, comparing gay, lesbian, and bisexual students we have 54% vs. 16%, slighter over threefold, and for attempted suicide, we have 37% vs. 11%, also over three times as great in Wyoming.
Regarding US data, Mike Parker writes in “Gay Youth Suicides in Utah,” FAIRLDS.org, October 11, 2017:
If it’s true that Mormonism is driving youth suicides in Utah, then we should see a similar suicide rate among youth in other states dominated by religions that are similarly opposed to gay identity, gay lifestyle, and gay marriage. But we don’t: The suicide rates for ages 10 to 24 in Georgia (9.18, #33), South Carolina (9.91, #29), West Virginia (8.88, #37), Alabama (9.56, #32), and all other Southern states as well, are all lower than Utah’s rate. Religious acceptance of homosexuality is at least as low in those states as it is in Utah; why the dramatic difference in youth suicide?
And the reverse must also be true: States with broad acceptance of gay identity, gay lifestyle, and gay marriage must have lower rates of teenage/young adult suicides than Utah; right? Then why does fairly liberal Colorado (16.69, #5) rank just barely ahead of Utah? And why does South Dakota (25.22, #2) differ so much from North Dakota (7.81, #42), when the two states have nearly identical cultures? And why has Utah seen teen/young adult suicides increase by 66% between 2001 and 2015, but Oregon (+78%) and Washington state (+68%), where gays are supposedly warmly embraced, have had higher rates of increase in youth suicide in the same time period?
And, most telling of all, why has the national suicide rate for teens/young adults gone from 6.95 in 2001 to 9.15 in 2015 (an increase of 32%), when acceptance of the gay identity, gay lifestyle, and gay marriage have increased dramatically throughout the United States during the same period? Wouldn’t we expect to see a decrease in the nationwide suicide rate of youths, including gay youths?
The problem here is that suicide is complex, and rarely boils down to a single issue. The narrative that Utah culture and religion are a significant cause of teen suicides in the state isn’t backed up by the evidence, does a disservice to the people of the State of Utah, and does a disservice to people of faith.
To review US data, see the CDC report on suicides by state in the US. Utah ranks high, along with all of its neighbors, whether conservative or liberal. What I wish we had was more data on the specific faiths and level of religious activity among the victims of suicide, combined with data on LGBTQ victims. Is such data available anywhere now? I haven’t seen it. However, I am aware of data suggesting that states legalizing same-sex marriage before 2015 saw a 7% decrease in high-school student suicide attempts, with roughly a 14% decrease for LGBTQ students. See Julia Raifman et al., “Difference-in-Differences Analysis of the Association Between State Same-Sex Marriage Policies and Adolescent Suicide Attempts,” JAMA Pediatrics 171/4 (April 2017): 350-356; doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529. Causality is debatable, but it’s consistent with a positive legal environment having some helpful impact.
But for the specific challenges found in Utah and within the Church, can we really properly say that LDS policies are the key problem? Is suicide in Utah among LDS LGB youth truly higher than for non-LDS LGB youth? And if so, is there anything of substance to show a link to the Church as the right target to pursue? I would welcome more data.
Something More in the Motivations Behind the Film? A Minor Aside
Reynolds is presented as a warrior for truth and love whose motivation to stand up against the policies of the Church was motivated by his big heart. This motivation appears to be relatively recent, starting with his marriage where lesbian friends of his wife refused to attend a marriage to a Latter-day Saints due to the Church’s support for Proposition 8. After the startling discovery that being LDS was highly offensive to his wife’s dear friends, there was gradual recognition that suicide among LGBTQ people is way too high in Utah and allegedly caused by the Church.
Reynolds’ journey includes a series of encounters with tragic stories, including that of a young man at BYU who was expelled for violating the moral code by having sex with his girlfriend. As I recall, this may have been just once or a few times, followed by confession of the sin. I don’t know the details behind the decision so cannot judge whether the consequences were overly harsh, though (of course) it sounds that way as presented. Depressed after being ousted from BYU, the young man committed suicide.
I agree that this suicide was a terrible, tragic result and wish it could have been avoided. I do not agree that abandoning the moral code that we believe comes from God is the way to deal with such tragedies or to enhance the overall mental and physical well-being of BYU students. I’m all for increased resources and attention to those facing disappointment and grief, whether it’s from repercussions of violating the honor code or failing academically or encountering other sorrows that shatter our dreams. Love and support is needed by all of us in our most painful times. But the existence of or the potential for such pain doesn’t mean that the rules or systems we may collide with need to go.
I am puzzled as to why the film neglected to point out that Reynolds, like the expelled student he mourns, was also kicked out of BYU for the same reason, or possibly a more egregious form of that reason. In the opening moments of Dan Reynolds’ interview by Ellen DeGeneres, he openly explains that he is upset at the Church for kicking him out of BYU after having had sex with his girlfriend for four years. That would seem to be highly relevant to the film since he has raised a similar case as an example of what’s wrong with the Church. Was this information withheld to reduce the chance that the target audience might suspect that Reynolds’ has a long-standing grudge against the Church’s moral code? Is there fear that an LDS audience might think he wants to change not only Church policies relating to homosexuality or same-sex marriage but the law of chastity in general?
In his interview, he criticizes the Church for the “needless shame and guilt” it caused him and causes others when they clash with such moral codes (of course, if unwilling to abide by the honor code, students have always been free to go to any other university where laxer standards exist). “Why is this thing that feels right also something that gets me kicked out of college and shames me and my community and made me feel all this guilt?” This is a question that can be asked by those caught up in numerous behaviors that religions besides ours view as unhealthy, inappropriate, sinful, harmful to society, etc. From gambling to drug abuse to pedophilia, the world’s vices can “feel right” at the time and can bring guilt and shame when consequences follow.
Reynolds said that this painful experience of being expelled was his first recognition that he felt something in the Church needed to change. It apparently wasn’t more love for LGBTQ people that he suddenly felt was needed at that time, but would seem to be an abandonment of the Church’s fundamental teachings on the law of chastity. Is his target the law of chastity per se? Or perhaps moral codes in general and consequences for breaking them? Or is his target simply just the Church? I don’t know. Based on the film, Dan’s motivations for speaking against the Church’s policies seem driven by sincere concern for LGBTQ people who are at elevated risk for suicide.
May his efforts with the LoveLoud festival reduce suicide risk in Utah and elsewhere, and help all of us be more sensitive to the risks and sorrows that others may face.
Religion and Suicide
The assumption that shame from religious policies increases suicide is repeated in the film and in many other sources, but in my opinion without reliable data. In fact, such assertions fly in the face of evidence showing positive impact of religion in reducing suicide risk for those who attend faithfully. Dr. Tyler J. VanderWeele, Professor of Epidemiology at Harvard University, and Director of the Program on Integrative Knowledge and Human Flourishing at Harvard’s Institute of Quantitative Social Science, explains in “Does Religious Participation Contribute to Human Flourishing?” at Big Questions Online:
[R]ecent research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s JAMA Internal Medicine and JAMA Psychiatry and in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine indicates that regular religious-service attendance is associated with a number of positive outcomes, including: a roughly 30 percent reduction in mortality over 16 years of follow-up; a five-fold reduction in the likelihood of suicide; and a 30 percent reduction in the incidence of depression. These studies, from my colleagues and me in Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, used data from the Nurses’ Health Study, a long-term study of approximately one hundred thousand nurses with data collected over several decades. The results confirm associations between religious-service attendance and health previously reported in the research literature.
But does this also apply specifically to Latter-day Saints? I hope so, but again, I would welcome more data. Fortunately, suicide rates versus levels of activity in the Church your young males was explored in a previous study (kudos to John Mansfield for this tip). See Sterling C. Hilton, Gilbert W. Fellingham, and Joseph L. Lyon, “Suicide Rates and Religious Commitment in Young Adult Males in Utah,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 155/5 (March 1, 2002): 413–419, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/155.5.413. Here is the abstract:
Previous studies have used population data to demonstrate an inverse association between suicide rates and religious commitment. This report examines Utah suicide rates for young men aged 15–34 years, stratified by their membership in and commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the predominant religion in Utah. All state death records for males from 1991 to 1995 were obtained and linked to LDS church deceased membership records to obtain a measure of religious commitment that is not self-reported. Religious commitment for LDS church members was determined by age-appropriate priesthood office. Of the 27,738 male deaths reported, 15,555 (56%) linked to an LDS church record using a probabilistic linking program. Using active (high religious commitment) LDS as the reference group, the less-active (low religious commitment) LDS group had relative risks of suicide ranging from 3.28 (ages 15–19 years) to 7.64 (ages 25–29 years); nonmembers of the LDS church had relative risks ranging from 3.43 (ages 15–19 years) to 6.27 (ages 20–24 years). Although the mechanism of the association is unclear, higher levels of religiosity appear to be inversely associated with suicide. [emphasis added]
Also consider Kanita Dervic, M.D., et al., “Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt,” The American Journal of Psychiatry, Dec 2004; https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303. Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: Few studies have investigated the association between religion and suicide either in terms of Durkheim’s social integration hypothesis or the hypothesis of the regulative benefits of religion. The relationship between religion and suicide attempts has received even less attention. METHOD: Depressed inpatients (N=371) who reported belonging to one specific religion or described themselves as having no religious affiliation were compared in terms of their demographic and clinical characteristics.
RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.
CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.
On the other hand, a study of Austrians indicated that the impact of religion, often found to be helpful in reducing suicide, can also be a risk factor. See Karl Kralovec et al., “Religion and Suicide Risk in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Austrians,” Journal of Religion and Health, 53/2 (April 2014): 413–423. Their study of the effect of religion on suicide risk in a sample of 358 lesbian, gay and bisexual Austrians found “religion was associated with higher scores of internalized homophobia, but with fewer suicide attempts. Our data indicate that religion might be both a risk and a protective factor against suicidality in religiously affiliated sexual minority individuals.” Also see NPR’s summary of several studies, including some mentioned above, that suggest that tolerant legislation on same-sex marriage can have a helpful impact on suicide among LGB youth, though the problem remains severe.
Religion, policies, family response, peer response, state and local environments, and a host of other factors can have an impact on suicide for youth and for LGB youth in particular. There’s a problem that needs more attention, more love, and more data. Religion’s role may be much more positive than commonly recognized, in spite of the tendency by some to assume that the Church’s failure to support gay marriage inherently represents hate that makes many young people more likely to commit suicide. Of course, at the same time I can agree that such policies can be viewed as horrific by those they most affect and can contribute to anger and a sense of rejection. If that is contributing to suicide in populations already at risk for elevated suicide, then I am deeply sorry. Do such risks outweigh the helpful benefits of religious faith that can greatly reduce suicide? What are the real factors causing the complex results we see? For such issues, more data and fewer hasty conclusions are needed, in my opinion. But in any case, more kindness and love to those around us is always needed.
Overall, Believer is a highly interesting and entertaining documentary, though I’m not convinced Reynolds really counts as a believer, nor that he has picked the right dragon to slay. It’s quite a coup for John Dehlin, so congrats to him for scoring such a major media victory, and while I disagree with John on many issues, I will gladly agree on the need to elevate our attention and kindness to those at risk in our midst.
Related resource: “Suicide in the United States,” Wikipedia.
Valuable critique of this film. And I have been puzzled for years that LDS academics roll over and play dead when unsubstantiated claims regarding suicides.
Thanks. I'm not sure that they are rolling over. It's a sensitive topic and there are some reasons that can lead sincere people to blame the Church, but I think there is also high risk for bias and activism to taint the objectivity of such claims, just as pro-LDS bias can lead us to overlook how serious the problem is, whatever its cause. These are preliminary thoughts and I, like most of us, need to learn more on this topic. I welcome further insights and solutions.
Is there any truth to the promise that if we don't live up to our covenants we'll be in the power of Satan?
Why include that line with no context if not?
President Brigham Young (1801–77) prophesied “that the Church would spread, prosper, grow and extend, and that in proportion to the spread of the Gospel among the nations of the earth, so would the power of Satan rise.”
How could church growth increase Satan's power? From members covenanting in the temple (and at baptism) to follow Christ, receive his Spirit, then turning away from it.
Satan doesn't have a body. He seeks to make all men miserable like himself. The dead spiritsslook upon their absence from their bodies as bondage.
Ergo…
C2 – We are not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the fact the apologist broken their covenants and turned away from the spirit drove the Mormon LGBT community to suicide?
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claim to believe in an old book that says gay sex is an abomination punishable by death.
An abomination. Punishable by death. But hey, gay people, we love you!
Can't imagine why gay believers find this depressing.
— OK
“In this day of hyper-sensitive efforts to not offend others, criticizing my religion always seems like the only safe exception.”
“I am anxious to see what other religions might be targeted on future flights, but suspect there will be many more frequent flyer miles to go before I sleep through those films.”
United is offering content that they think their customers would want to see—I don’t think they have an agenda about Mormonism or any other religion. A documentary starring the lead singer of one of the most popular bands in the world right now who is on the “right” side of a hot button social movement is a win for them.
They also offer TV programming, including A&E, that has a program specifically maligning Scientology (in its 3rd season by the way). They likely showed the movie “Spotlight” when it was released. Yours isn’t the only religion being scrutinized.
Just checked—“Spotlight” was an offering in Jan 2017 on United flights.
Thanks for the welcome relief. I really was thinking that surely United had to have something jabbing at Catholic priests and Scientologists as well — the very safe "fair target club." Anything in the pipeline on, say, Unitarians, Methodists, Muslims, or Wiccans? Looking forward to more diversity.
An important piece of work for anyone who wants to consider suicide among LDS youth is “Suicide Rates and Religious Commitment in Young Adult Males in Utah” in the American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 155, no. 5, pp. 413-419, 2002. Those interested in the topic can link to the abstract and full text; that link will also connect them with a pdf of the paper. I knew one of the authors, Sterling Hilton, when he was working on his biostatistics PhD at Johns Hopkins. Table 2 gives suicide rates in Utah for teen and young adult males who are active LDS, less-active LDS, and nonmember. Given the popularity of this topic lately, it is curious that this paper is not widely cited among those addressing the topic.
If the question is having a community and common beliefs is valuable in shoring people up, then I'm sure we could all agree that's true. When the question becomes what supports people when they realize what they've believed in was a Magic Feather á la "Dumbo", then a different thing is going on. How does that 2002 study represent that?
Does it attempt to reflect that LGBT Mormon youth have their own self-loathing baked in to add to the insecurity that they will be loathsome to parents and community? And listening to deliberately targeted condemnation every April and October?
Well, those weren't such pressing questions in the years prior to 2002 when that data was gathered. But they are now.
… jabbing at Catholic priests and Scientologists as well — the very safe "fair target club." Anything in the pipeline on, say, Unitarians, Methodists, Muslims, or Wiccans? Looking forward to more diversity.
Jeff seems to think that religions get criticized simply for being religions, whereas in fact they're getting criticized for promoting harmful attitudes and practices. Unitarians and Wiccans don't do that, but Mormons and Scientologists do. And yes, so do a lot of Muslims—I agree with Jeff on that one. Here's a partial list of critics of Islam. One of these many, many critics, Bill Maher, slammed Islam in his film Religulous. I'm sure there are other such films out there, though I don't know of any that have been as widely seen as this one.
— OK
This is typical of the insular and somewhat narcissistic thinking in Mormon society, likely brought on, at least in part, by the intense traumatic persecution the church faced in its early decades of existence. The idea is "we are a chosen and special people, it's us against the world, and the world wants to tear us down." Most of the world isn't even familiar with the Church, let alone intending ill will towards it. Any analysis of church practice that is contrary to what the church says should be is seen by most members as a direct attack by those in "the world" who have evil intentions.
What about those of us contemplating suicide because we feel the LDS Church is changing its doctrine to placate the LGBT community?
When you've been told your entire life that homosexuality is wrong, and now to be gaslighted like those teachings were simply part of your imagination, and that YOU'RE the bigot for having believed them, that can cause a great deal of anguish in a person.
But people who did what they were told as young members are now told they are judgmental bigots never gets addressed. Even quoting past prophets will get you shunned out of Sunday School these days. Everything taught through President Hinckly on this topic is essentially considered bigoted false doctrine.
My sunday school literally got into a shouting match a few weeks ago against our Stake Patriarch because he was teaching "The Family". The Bishop and Stake President were present and said nothing.
I quoted a talk by President Benson on the topic in ward council, and afterward my bishop pulled me aside and told me to, "keep your mouth shut next time".
I don't even know this church anymore. This is not the church I served my mission for.
@ AK
Agree with you 100%!!
Relax, AK. The Church did a similar U-turn on black spiritual inferiority in 1978, and everyone adjusted just fine. Timeless, unchanging truths have a way of changing with the times, and it’s a good thing, too.
— OK
As noted in the comments, the Church has been making specific efforts to be welcoming to members who feel non-heterosexual sexual urges. That is in contrast to its prior statements that did not specifically conceive of a place in the Church for them. Why should there be an increase in suicide rates when the Church is becoming MORE supportive of them? If levels of intolerance correlate with depression and suicide, the suicide rates should be going down.
To what extent does the increasing spotlight on suicide as a reaction to non-acceptance work as a factor encouraging young people to conceive of suicide as legitimate choice, perhaps one that will justly punish those who have been intolerant? Comparing cultures, such as Japan, where suicide has a long history of being ritualized as a means of resolving intolerable tensions and disappointments (such as failing university entrance exams), it is clear that cultural attitudes toward suicide can affect suicide rates. So how much are increasing suicides the result of a growing view that suicide is an honorable escape from perceived intolerance?
Interesting question, thanks. Sometimes I also worry that the dramatic attention given to some suicide victims in the media might encourage a few to contemplate suicide more seriously. But on the other hand, we need to know more about their stories.
One of the Church’s scriptures says this:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.
Even if the Church is otherwise going out of its way to be more welcoming of its gay members, it isn’t go to repudiate its own sacred texts, and I’m sure a lot gay Mormons understand that all too well.
— OK
OK, that verse is part of the scriptures of faithful Jews and all Christians, and as far as I know no synagogues or churches are calling for bringing back that aspect of the law of Moses, for which I am grateful. Are you suggesting that people are becoming suicidal over that verse? Are you demanding that Jews excise that verse from their sacred texts, or is it enough that they recognize it is no longer applicable?
Jeff, you note that as far as I know no synagogues or churches are calling for bringing back that aspect of the law of Moses.
There actually are churches (just a few in this country, but many more abroad) that do advocate for killing gay men.
Since the LDS Church is in many ways descended from New England Puritanism, I should note here that the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in forming its own laws independently of England, made gay sex punishable by death, and in writing this law they used the exact language of Leviticus. They literally turned levitical law into civil law.
Are you suggesting that people are becoming suicidal over that verse?
There are people becoming suicidal because of the Church's hostility to homosexuality, and that hostility is deeply rooted in that verse. Are gay Mormons reading the verse itself? I don't know. As good Mormons, shouldn't they be reading it? I mean, shouldn't they be reading the Bible?
Are you demanding that Jews excise that verse from their sacred texts…?
Don't be silly. I have far too much respect for the Bible to call for bowdlerizing it. I want people to understand what the Bible is, what its passages meant when they were written, etc.
… or is it enough that they recognize it is no longer applicable?
No, it's not enough simply to say, Well, it's no longer applicable. That leaves open the thorny question of why this passage is no longer applicable while so many others still are. It engenders the suspicion that LDS biblical hermeneutics is driven by public relations rather than considered principle.
What is needed is nothing less than a sweeping, systematic re-thinking of the meaning and role of scripture. Some churches have done this; others (such as yours) remain stuck in the ad hoc, pick-and-choose phase of conforming scripture to modern belief.
The whole question of what role ancient scripture should play in determining modern values and practices is, to say the least, under-thought in the LDS Church, as compared, say, to the Catholic Church and many of the mainline Protestant churches. When it comes to questions about which tenets still apply, and which don't, and which theological pronouncements are timeless and unalterable truths and which are meant only for their specific place and time — let's just say the Church's occasional attempts to explain this stuff are laughable. If you really wanted to assist your church in its great mission, you might consider pushing it to start taking these questions more seriously. A good first step might be to start promoting more genuine scholars (and fewer biblical ignoramuses) into upper management.
Really though, as I suppose the Church will eventually discover, nothing less than a systematically liberal approach to scripture and theology will do here. Until then, and despite the Church's superficial attempts to seem "welcoming," core LDS theology will be very much a part of the problem of gay suicide, and will probably remain so until the Church decides to grow up theologically and scripturally.
— OK
Hi OK,
Why stop at homosexual acts. Why didn't you include adultery as part of this discourse? Adultery gets the same punishment at homosexual acts:
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife – with the wife of his neighbor – both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10
This also had influence on Puritanical laws in the 17th century.
Steve
Agreed, Steve. But what’s your point?
— OK
AK:
In regards to your Sunday School class, may I suggest that you write a letter to the First Presidency detailing what happened? I think that they would be happy to hear about it. They would even accept an anonymous report.
I have had similar incidents happen here in California that I have reported to General Authorities. They weren't pleased.
Good article.
There have been two times Jeff Lindsey was very rude to me. And Jeff Lindsey defends, and sides with, his very arrogant, rude and willfully obtuse apologist friends.
Practice what you preach. Thank you.
Awesome, the man who calls large numbers of his fellow mormons anti-mormons is bothered by the word hate. Then he goes on to imply Dan Reynolds is just a dirty sinner seeking to blame others for the unhappinesses his defective nature brought. His lack of similar comment with John dehlin I am should was not from lack of searching. But hey, lying, confused, anti-mormon, Mormons can use a little more kindness … Whatever
The gospel brings such joy and happiness to a person's life. If a person reads the Book of Mormon regularly, attends church every week, and prays everyday, they will never commit suicide.
It is a malicious and destructive lie that someone is a born gay. Homosexuality is a spiritual disorder, with roots in selfishness. It is understandable that such a lost soul would end in suicide. The LDS church teaches love for the men and women who experience homosexual attraction and speaks out against verbal attacks. Those that succumbed did so despite the best efforts of the Church to bring them back to Christ and repentance.
Anon at 9:25, I'm troubled by your statements and apologize if my concerns will offend you.
First, yes, the Gospel brings joy, but there are factors that even the most faithful experience in mortality that can bring great sorrow and depression. Many setbacks and disappointments in life, as well as many forms of mental illness, can lead to despair and hopelessness, and in dark moments, good people who were reading and praying faithfully can succumb to suicide. It is a tragedy that affects some who sincerely seek the Savior, and they deserve our compassion and love.
The issue of what people are born with is complex and not something that I think can bear blanket statements like this. The reasons we have attractions, tendencies, desires, preferences, etc. for anything — certain types of people, fruit, hobbies, whatever — clearly can involve a mix of factors that can include not only genetics but other factors present or presented to us before birth or shortly thereafter. It doesn't take a specific "gay gene" for someone to legitimately say they felt they were gay at an early age and feel it is an inherent part of them.
Blaming homosexuality on selfishness is also objectionable, IMO, and one that clearly contradicts some of the information the Church has shared. In presenting stories of those with same-sex attraction who choose to remain active in the Church, it is clear that selfless, loving people who might even wish they were heterosexual have homosexual desires that are not simply removed by repentance and prayer. Their stories and experiences should help us understand the need to be more accepting and less judgmental, and avoid assuming we know what is a lie and what is not regarding the experiences of others with a different story. Nor is it proper to call them lost souls or to explain their unique and personal struggles as a mere consequence of sin when we have no idea what they are going through.
There are many very good people who succumb to suicide, and I trust the Lord to be tender and merciful with them on an individual basis. There are many great people who struggle with same-sex attraction or who embrace it and are openly gay. There seem to be even more good people who struggle with their heterosexual tendencies. Life is a spectrum of diverse natures, situations, and burdens. Let's not jump to dogmatic conclusions about the challenges others face.
Anon @ 8:52 wrote, "Awesome, the man who calls large numbers of his fellow mormons anti-mormons is bothered by the word hate." Help me out: I generally refrain from calling people anti-Mormon and try to only use that term for those who clearly acting in overtly hostile ways. Can you remind me of when I improperly called large numbers of my fellow Latter-day Saints anti-Mormons? Or are you just trolling?
I hate to tell you this, but no, the word "hate" does not bother me. The stupidity and evil of hate itself does, but the word is a useful one that we sometimes need in a world filled with angry people.
Jeff Linsay @ 12:36
I will take your bait.
Except for maybe Catholic Defender (CD), just about everyone here is Mormon. As you know, you call many of them anti-Mormon. Sometimes you define anti-Mormon as some one who tells Mormons what their doctrine is. Irony, considering you are are constantly tell other Mormons they don't know where their doctrine is. You use anti-Mormon to merely describe Mormons who disagree with you. You object to people using the word 'hate' as anything they disagree with, something you do regularly with the label anti-Mormon. The google search engine results are much too large to post here.
You are free to pretend your labeling of intellectual and academic discussion you disagree with as "overtly hostile" while your endorsement of going door to door telling baptized Christians their baptism is an apostate baptism is not "overtly hostile", but that is just silly.
But if you are only interested in trolling, I understand.
Jeff Lindsay says "in spite of being frequently condemned for my stance as a conservative Latter-day Saint". What? I am sure Jeff Lindsay has been called everything in the book, but 'frequently'? If Jeff Lindsay was any more liberal he would be John Dehlin and near a disciplinary counsel.
Except for maybe Catholic Defender (CD), just about everyone here is Mormon.
Catholic Defender (I haven't seen him on any recent posts, so it's curious he would be brought up…) is far from the only non-LDS commenter on Jeff's blog. James Anglin, Mormography, Orbiting Kolob… I'm pretty sure none of them are LDS. I would not, however, call all of them "anti-Mormon" (which, by the way, is NOT how Mormography defined it). Catholic Defender, for example; I have read many of his comments on older ones, and he doesn't seem to be here to attack, make fun of, or argue with Jeff or other Latter-day Saints. He debates, yes, but I can tell that he tries to do it respectfully, and in a way that doesn't demean anyone. Thus, I would not call him an anti-Mormon.
Mormography, however, DOES do all of those things – he attacks, makes fun of, AND argues with Jeff and other Latter-day Saints, and frequently demeans them. He also tries to twist just about everything positive anyone says about the Church so that they're suddenly condemning the Church, or "conceding" the critics' viewpoints. I would definitely call him an anti-Mormon.
I don't know about someone that argues (that is just life), but isn't someone that makes fun, demeans, or twists just plain old obnoxious, rude, insensitive and impolite, not necessarily anti-Mormon?
Anon @12:49 said, "just about everyone here is Mormon. As you know, you call many of them anti-Mormon." No, I really don't know this. I don't use that word lightly to describe many people, unless I'm having serious mental lapses or am writing without thinking, as does sometimes happen. So I'd appreciate you pointing out my recent lapses in this area where I have improperly called many fellow LDS people antis.
And what makes you think just about everyone here is Mormon?
Impolite people are not necessarily anti-Mormon. But why are people so afraid of the anti word? If someone opposes Trump vocally, is it shameful to suggest they might be anti-Trump? If someone actively denounces Communism, could they be anti-Communist? And if you think "Mormonism" is pure evil and you denounce it, why be angry to be called anti-Mormon? The word has to have some meaning. But I do seriously try not to use it much. And don't think I've used it often against serious fellow LDS people who disagree with me on an issue or many issues.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"And if you think "Mormonism" is pure evil and you denounce it, why be angry to be called anti-Mormon?"
You see. Just because, despite all your intelligence and reading, you are incapable of winning an argument you started does not mean the person exposing you thinks "'Mormonism' is pure evil" and denounces it. The fact you think it does just shows how much hate consumes your person. Who is the angry one?
But why are Mormons so hesitant of the Mormon word? If someone truly thinks their religion possess an extremely special quality, is it shameful to suggest a unique distinguisher for their religion? If someone actively proclaims their religion and no other speaks for Christ, wouldn't they want a brand name that would not confuse them with any other Christian. And if you think "Mormonism" is pure awesomeness and you want to shout it from the mountain tops, why shy away from being called Mormon?
Anon 2:53 PM –
Because it removes the name of Christ from His church.
Nope, calling you Mormon has never remove Christ from the name Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints before so no reason it should start now. So for all the reason already mention you should like being called Mormon.
Also, if people should not be offended by the word anti-Mormon, then you should not be offended by being called anti-Christian because you declared the priesthood of 1 billion Christians apostate.
I'm puzzled by Mormons that feel they are not anti-Christian. Statements about great and abominable churches, protestant ministers working for Satan himself, and even God declaring "all their creeds were an abomination" "those professors were all corrupt" teaching "for doctrines the commandments of men". Sure hasn't looked very pro- or neutral, and the tone and accusations sure seem to fall in the anti-camp. If Christians are as bad as you say, maybe being anti-Christian is something to be proud of.
Interesting tactics and condescending tone (e.g., equating homosexuality to gambling, drug abuse, and pedophilia, suspecting Dan Reynolds holding a secret grudge).
I'm not convinced Jeff Lindsay really counts as a believer:
1. His post on cognitive dissonance clearly shows he never truly experienced it, a sign of a less active heart instead of a more vigorous one. Having never tasted the salt, he just does not get what it means to believe.
2. Repeatedly narrows (not expands) the faith by openly eliminating (not adding) doctrines he determines are passe. A believing apologist defends the faith, an apologist that does not believe renounces ownership. He jettisons prior doctrine as "offensive caricatures".
3. Rejects canonized DC 10 as scripture.
4. Here, we see him suggest faith in Jesus does not heal as promised. Here he doubts the promise of the restored gospel to radically change ones life instantaneously.
5. The Gospel only "tends" to make us healthier. The Gospel is just another social club for a healthy lifestyle, like being vegan or yoga.
6. Mormon latter-day prophets are not the fantastical prophets, seers, revelators with magical powers, but administrative leaders of a social group that write generic statements about the value of families. Prophets are just some kind of prophet like the rest of us are some kind of prophet for a least a moment or two.
Ramer –
Apparently I have been renting space in your head. Hope my rent is not late, u might have to file for eviction with the Judge.
With regards to making fun, demeaning, etc., I usually only do this to people who do it first, regardless if they are LDS or not. And thank goodness, because if I didn't, who keep u in check and stop u from embarrassing the LDS further? Isn't that pro-LDS?
With regards to twisting, any specific examples? Or r u just making stuff up again? And why would I want to condemn the LDS church over a few imperfect people like yourself? I know way too many outstanding LDS who would be appalled to think they should be condemned because of u.
-Mormography
"I'm not convinced Jeff Lindsay really counts as a believer…"
Yes, I thought that was you, Mormography. I'll turn the other cheek on this one and accept your claim to being a non-believer. In fact, I marvel at just how arduously you strive in your non-believing. By the way, as a zealous disbeliever, would it offend you if someone concluded you might be a little "anti"? Or is that a taboo word for you also? Just curious. It's a word I try to avoid, but thought I'd ask. Market research.
For the record, I am a believer, really, though I'm sorry my belief doesn't meet your standards for what Latter-day Saints need to believe. Something about having more cognitive dissonance and also thinking that once we believe, we will be instantly cured of all ills, get better teeth, maybe gain two or three inches in height or whatever and other cool magic, I guess. I believe in miracles, but not guaranteed ones on demand. Looks like I'd never get a temple recommend if you were my Stake President.
Another Anon said, "condescending tone (e.g., equating homosexuality to gambling, drug abuse, and pedophilia, suspecting Dan Reynolds holding a secret grudge)". No, I was referring to Reynold's own statement about his heterosexual activities that got him booted from BYU. He publicly defended that on TV as something that felt so right, so how could it be bad? I observed that many vices have that appeal but it's not an adequate justification. So my statement was about his BYU story, not homosexuality.
The BYU story may be relevant. That it was not mentioned in the movie, while another young man booted for the same reason was held up as a victim of the Church, might say something about Reynolds' attitudes and anger toward the Church. Or it might not, but it's something that can be considered and raises a question mark about the way he is positioned in the film.
So you concede your "recent lapses in this area where" you "have improperly called" LDS people antis. That is OK. The miracle of forgiveness awaits.
I am most definitely anti. Anti-bully. I donated $50 to school buss monitor Karen Klein when that punk bullied her and later to Jeremy Runnell's website when his Stake President picked on him. As for anti-Mormon, I have no problem being anti-Mormon … if you back it up. After a decade of trying, you and fairmormon have been unable to back it up and proven when you do it out of name calling bullying only.
If you get to self declare a believer, than so does Dan Reynolds. I hope I taught you an invaluable lesson and helped bring you closer to Christ.
Your comments on the Stake President are curious. The LDS church is in fact a big tent. There is no litmus test if a person believes in local or global Biblical flood, etc. A LDS person can believe that polygamy is required in heaven, or not, and still get a recommend. There is no requirement that a person be orthodox Mormon to get a recommend. In fact, there is no requirement that a person actually believe, just think they believe, or not be lying when they say they believe. I have even seen people get baptized Mormon with Virgin Guadalupe medallions around their necks.
So I most definitely would give you a recommend. I know of a LDS bishop that refused to give people recommends for watching rated R movies. Not long after, God took him to heaven with a freak accident for that corrupt, unrighteous dominion, ha ha.
So you concede your "recent lapses in this area where" you "have improperly called" LDS people antis.
Right there is a perfect example of twisting someone else's words. Actually reading Jeff's comment shows that he was asking where these supposed lapses were.
Right, and I gave him what he demanded (he deleted the post – you will have to ask him why). He demanded something, I graciously gave it him, and then he deletes the post without explanation or follow up. Without follow up on his part to something he demanded, I am left to conclude how I wish, unless he wishes to clarify. Sorry Ramer, that does not make me the one twisting things. But now that we all see how you jump to the conclusion of twisting, we know how orbital your assessments are.
You had me with you, until the whole Fed thing. Remind us what your beef with the Fed is.
Our money should have “In The Fed We Trust” written on it. Like all human systems it is fallible, but so far we have been fortunate to have intelligent men and women in it help us clean up our messes.
Even Milton Friedman complained that the Fed did not do more during the great depression. Huh? Do more? Limited government guy wanted the Fed to do more?
The Fed did not decide whether or not to support Israel in the 70's. Arthur Burns may have put a conservative like Nixon in a corner and forced him into price and wage controls, but then came Paul Volcker, backed by Reagan, to save the day.
The Fed did not create the internet or the internet bubble. Alan Greenspan failed to further limit margin rates, but imagine that, had the Fed not limited how much stocks can be bought with borrowed money the internet bubble would have been even bigger. Had the Fed not lowered interest rates post pop, the pop would have been even bigger.
The Fed did not create the credit rating agencies or encourage them to commit fraud. It did not create the credit default swaps on questionable mortgages. In 2008, when the fraud became evident to all and the financial system froze because no one could figure out who owned these credit default swaps, it was the Fed that help softened the blow and kick the can down the road.
So from US support of Israeli, to Internet bubbles, to our collective mortgage fraud induced financial Armageddon of 2008, the Fed has been there walk us through it.
Can you imagine if congress had to walk us through these economics crisis-es. Thank goodness congress outsourced the job to the Fed. You really want congress to start doing it again? The same congress you just complained about? Erratic interest rates every election cycle? Really? That is what you want?
Ramer –
Sorry missed posted the above about the Fed.
On your topic of twisting. Jeff says about my words "we will be instantly cured of all ills, get better teeth, maybe gain two or three inches in height or whatever and other cool magic,"
So, Ramer, are you going to be consistent and accuse him of twisting my words?
-Mormography
I don't recall any time you've actually said that phrase; he seems to be indicating what critics such as you often seem to think we believe will happen if people join the Church. If you had actually said that in a context different than the one Jeff's presenting it in, then yeah, he would be twisting your words. As it is, it's just a generalization.
Ramer – You see, you failed to provided a single example of "twist just about everything positive anyone says about the Church so that they're suddenly condemning the Church" With regards to other people, you proved you resort to double standards, one person generalizes, another twists.
So we see the hate that fills your heart and that anti-Mormon is just a religion identification slur in the sense that Jeff that uses word slur.
Your inability to follow the teachings your religion is not condemning your Church, it is condemning you. But we all get that you do not understand the difference.
Yeah, I figured Mormography would find some way to insult me based on the answer I gave him.
What a bizzarre moral universe you have. If you can insult incessantly, the why can't he? At least he is not a stalker with confessed impulsivity problems like you.
Those might-makes-right personalities that only believe in wrong when it is convenient for them are amazing.