Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Creative editing Scott.  Here's an important piece you left out:

"While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, “I hit my companion.”

“Oh, is that all,” I said in great relief.

“But I floored him,” he said.

After learning a little more, my response was “Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn’t be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way.”

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just “that way” and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. From our premortal life we were directed into a physical body. There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men—masculine, manly men—ultimately to become husbands and fathers. No one is predestined to a perverted use of these powers."

He didn't say what the companion did to deserve being hit to the floor. 

That portion has been quoted ad nauseam by critics, antagonists and apostates. I quoted the portions that they never bother to quote, what was said before and after. I put it in context; the antagonists rarely, if ever, do.

And I linked to the talk in its entirety, so the charge "creative editing" is overblown.

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Creative editing Scott.  Here's an important piece you left out:

"While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, “I hit my companion.”

“Oh, is that all,” I said in great relief.

“But I floored him,” he said.

After learning a little more, my response was “Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn’t be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way.”

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just “that way” and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. From our premortal life we were directed into a physical body. There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men—masculine, manly men—ultimately to become husbands and fathers. No one is predestined to a perverted use of these powers."

He didn't say what the companion did to deserve being hit to the floor. 

I don't see how Scott's creative editing modified President Packer's statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Editing problems force me to make a separate post to add to the one above this...Edit to add...if it is for sure an attack, then by all means use self defence.  

Thank you. I agree.

Would you agree that some people won't take no for an answer when they are trying to have their way sexually and that they would resist admitting it even if what they were doing crosses over into being attempted sexual assault?

"No means no" applies as well when the victim is male as it does when the victim is female.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you. I agree.

Would you agree that some people won't take no for an answer when they are trying to have their way sexually and that they would resist admitting it even if what they were doing crosses over into being attempted sexual assault?

Yes...

Almost feel like I was on a witness stand and the judge just said sustained after your inquisition.  

Edited February 2, 2016 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it's very, very clear that they did in this instance. The burden of proof is on those who claim that they didn't.

Furthermore, it's a very serious accusation to state, imply or even hint that President Nelson was lying when he said they were unanimous in their position that this came by revelation.

Very, very clear would be the prophet acknowledging that he had received revelation.  The prophet, however, published a letter to the church and made no such indication that it came as a matter or revelation or the mind and will of God.

I have not stated, hinted, or implied that President Nelson was lying.  I believe he accurately recounted the experience that he had.  But I won't read into it what is not there.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've said how I interpret what he said. I believe my interpretation is at least as reasonable as yours; I would say more so.

And yes, if an apostle teaches that you are not required to stand still and take it when somebody tries to assault you sexually or otherwise, I'm going to embrace that teaching.

His leaving it open for interpretation IS the problem with that part of his address.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you. I agree.

Would you agree that some people won't take no for an answer when they are trying to have their way sexually and that they would resist admitting it even if what they were doing crosses over into being attempted sexual assault?

You do not know that is what was taking place here.  

But as a general question, I can't imagine anyone not answering "Yes" to that.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That portion has been quoted ad nauseam by critics, antagonists and apostates. I quoted the portions that they never bother to quote, what was said before and after. I put it in context; the antagonists rarely, if ever, do.

And I linked to the talk in its entirety, so the charge "creative editing" is overblown.

I think your quotes left out key parts and altered the meaning.  So I provided them for those who didn't go to the link.

[Tacenda]

58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think your quotes left out key parts and altered the meaning.  So I provided them for those who didn't go to the link.

I read the link, every word.  Glad it's there for proof that this mind think was thunk.  (the part of it not being inborn or genetic)

On second thought, maybe it might add fuel to the fire and shouldn't be included on LDS.org.  I wonder why it was taken off only to be put back on the LDS.org site.  It kind of has me worried.     

Edited February 2, 2016 by Tacenda

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think your quotes left out key parts and altered the meaning.  So I provided them for those who didn't go to the link.

Thanks for doing that as I had not read those quotes before (and wouldn't have followed the link given).  

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think your quotes left out key parts and altered the meaning.  So I provided them for those who didn't go to the link.

I don't see how Scott's creative editing modified President Packer's statement.

I've noticed that often the critics will refer to the talk without linking to it or giving it a citation and will just claim a priori that Elder Packer was condoning violence -- as Daniel did in his post yesterday.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/2/2016 at 9:01 AM, rockpond said:

His leaving it open for interpretation IS the problem with that part of his address.

So we must judge what is the most reasonable interpretation.

I submit that it is highly unreasonable to conclude that an apostle would be condoning or promoting violence against another unless there was a good reason, such as protecting oneself from physical harm. Only one who had a hostile mindset toward Elder Packer would have drawn that conclusion.

Why would Elder Packer have added "You must protect yourself" if physical force had not been necessary in that instance for the missionary to protect himself?

Edited March 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't see how Scott's creative editing modified President Packer's statement.

It's always good to see the entire quote.  But the link was given.  I just didn't click on it, so I'm glad Rockpond posted the rest.

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I've noticed that often the critics will refer to the talk without linking to it or giving it a citation and will just claim a priori that Elder Packer was condoning violence -- as Daniel did in his post yesterday.

He did condone violence.  And you agreed that it was appropriate.

To be fair, I think that if you make certain assumptions (as it appears you have) that the physical violence could have been justified.  The problem, as I stated, is the Elder Packer didn't state what the situation was and, in so doing, left it up to the interpretation of the listener/reader.  I think that was dangerous and irresponsible.

There was a time when this talk was not posted to LDS.org.  And it had been removed from print publication.  I'm saddened to see it back.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So we must judge what is the most reasonable interpretation.

I submit that it is highly unreasonable to conclude that an apostle would be condoning or promoting violence against another unless there were a good reason, such protecting oneself from physical harm. Only one who had a hostile mindset toward Elder Packer would have drawn that conclusion.

We must judge it with what the listener/reader might conclude.  This talk (and the corresponding pamphlet) was directed to young men.  I don't think you can safely conclude how a teenage boy would interpret it.  That's the problem I have with it.  And I do not have a hostile mindset toward President Packer.  In his 4+ decades of service as an apostle, he did much to expound on LDS doctrine and tirelessly teach us as church members.  I honor him for that.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thank you for sharing this, Meadowchik.  I'm glad to read more information from Wendy Montgomery as it helps explain the discrepancy with the numbers.  Just those reasons I quoted above (5 & 5) are reason enough why the numbers reported may have been different from the records.  It's a great post from her.

Meanwhile, let's take a quick look at how many false or misleading headlines have been generated because of Wendy Montgomery and her unverified and unverifiable statistic:

• Why 32 LGBT Youths Have Committed Suicide Since November
• Months after LDS policy change, 32 Mormon youth have committed suicide
• Group fears youth suicides up since LDS policy about gay couples, children
• 'Shocking' Surge In Mormon LGBT Suicides Blamed On LDS Church Policy: Elders Respond To Rumored Connection ("A recent surge in suicides among Mormons is shocking locals.  Some mental health experts think they know why Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or LDS) members are killing themselves: the recent policy change of the Mormon Church on the LGBT or LGBTQ community, namely children...")

And these are just the ones I found in about 2 minutes of searching.  

There have been hundreds upon hundreds of news articles talking about LDS suicides, because of Wendy Montgomery.  And although "awareness campaigns" are all the rage these days, advertising about increases in suicide is a dicy proposition.  It's called "suicide contagion":

Quote

One-tenth of people who lose friends or relatives to suicide are at risk of following suit.

British researchers have found that bereaved people are 65 per cent more likely to attempt suicide if they are grieving for comrades who took their own lives.

The finding suggests that ­losing someone to suicide should be considered a risk factor for early death, alongside such measures as familial history of heart ­attack or cancer. And while relatives of suicide victims have long been considered a high-risk group for suicide, the new study suggest screening should be extended to their in-laws and friends.

Lead researcher Alexandra ­Pitman of University College London­ said doctors and thera­pists should include such probes in clinical assessments of patients with psychological distress or ­suicidal thoughts.

The study, published in the journal BMJ Open, tracked more than 3400 university staff and ­students who had suddenly lost friends or family members, through both natural and unnatur­al causes.

The 614 participants who had lost people to suicide­ proved substantially more likely to contemplate killing themselves afterwards, with 9 per cent attempting to do so.

Dr Pitman said it was not clear why suicide had such devastating effects on friends and relatives, particularly given that it did not appear to trigger higher rates of depression than other forms of ­bereavement.

She said it was possible that suicides inspired people to copy them — a phenomenon known as “suicide contagion” — but this was impossible to verify without gauging people’s attitudes before and after comrades had killed themselves. The researchers say taboos around suicide could make it particularly destructive.

And here:

Quote

Beefed up prevention efforts, intervention and community events are helping to curtail Utah's high suicide rate, according to state officials.

While the latest numbers aren't yet available, "the numbers appear to be leveling off," said Doug Thomas, director of Utah's Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health. He believes the successes are due to increased awareness and said "more people are talking about suicide."

Suicide is the No. 1 cause of death for teens ages 10 to 17 and the sixth leading cause of death among all Utahns, making it a "major public health concern in Utah," Thomas said.

...

"Unfortunately, there is a contagion factor with suicide," Thomas told lawmakers at the state's Health and Human Services interim committee meeting on Wednesday. He said support for family and friends and the community-at-large is of utmost importance following a suicide in the community.

"Support for family and friends and the community-at-large is of the utmost importance."  Let's keep this in mind as we evaluate long-term orchestrated media campaigns by enemies of the LDS Church which essentially tells gay LDS teens "Your church hates you!  Your church's leaders hate you!  Your fellow Mormons hate you!"  The enemies of the LDS Church, in their zeal to attack the Church and make it look bad, run the risk of materially contributing to an atmosphere of "suicide contagion."  (But they'll probably to blame the Mormons for that too . . . )

Let us also keep in mind information like this:

Quote

American Journal of Epidemiology:
Active Latter-day Saints Seven Times Less Likely to Commit Suicide

SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology 2002;155:413-419. Write-up in: "High Religious Commitment Linked to Less Suicide", by Charnicia E. Huggins (Reuters Health), Daily News (6 March 2002), URL: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20020 ... ion_1.html

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Young Mormon men living in Utah who closely adhere to the dictates of their faith are less likely to commit suicide than their peers who are less active in the church, study findings show.

The Mormon Church is known formally as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

For more than 10 years, 15- to 34-year-old males in Utah have had suicide rates markedly higher than those seen nationally. In fact, in the early to mid-1990s, suicide was the number one cause of death among 25- to 44-year-old men in the state and the second-leading cause of death among men aged 15 to 24.

"These results provide evidence that a low level of religious commitment is a potential risk factor for suicide," Dr. Sterling C. Hilton of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, and his colleagues write in the March 1st issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.

...

Suicide rates in each of the four age categories studied--15 to 19 years, 20 to 24 years, 25 to 29 years, and 30 to 34 years--were lower among active members of the LDS church than among less active LDS church members, nonmembers and males in the general US population, the report indicates.

For example, the suicide rate among less active LDS church members aged 25 to 29 was seven times higher than among their active church peers. Nationally, the suicide rate among 20- to 34-year old males was 2.5 to 3 times higher than among active LDS church members of the same age. Suicide risk was also 3 to 6 times higher among nonmembers in comparison to active members of the LDS church.

In addition, the risk of suicide among males aged 15 to 19 was three times higher among the less active church members than among their active peers, but the rate among the active youth was comparable to the national suicide rate.

One potential reason for the association between lower suicide risk and high levels of religiosity may be the fact that some religions forbid substance abuse or other harmful behaviors that may be associated with suicide, the researchers speculate.

In addition, they suggest, the social structure and support provided by many religions may reduce feelings of isolation and help individuals who are suffering bouts of depression, thereby acting as a suicide prevention measure.

Lastly, the high value placed on life by many religions may also be an indirect method of suicide prevention, since individuals who are strongly committed to their faith may have a greater desire to live.

And this:

Quote

According to a study in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted and mainstreamed for years, homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, negating the mindset that society's lack of tolerance of homosexual behavior and lifestyle produces these psychoses. Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide. (Study of 5,998 Dutch adults) Theo G.M. Sandforte et al., "Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence," Archives of General Psychiatry 58, 10 (2001): 85-91.

Researchers found "an elevated suicide risk for homosexuals" even in tolerant Denmark. Ping Qin, Esben Agerbo, and Preben Bo Mortensen, "Suicide Risk in Relation to Socioeconomic, Demographic, Psychiatric, and Familial Factors: A National Register-Based Study of All Suicides in Denmark, 1981-1997." American Journal of Psychiatry 160 (2003): 765-772.

Let also read and re-read this article published recently by the Deseret New, which provides guidance from Church leaders and mental health experts in terms of reaching out to gay LDS teens.

When all is said and done, it seems like we're left with increased rates of suicide and suicide attempts among homosexual youth.  The current iteration of argumentation about this issue in this thread, having been spawned by Wendy Montgomery's facially suspect (and apparently falsified) statistics, is essentially to place the blame for these increased rates (and, I suspect, for other problems such as increased levels of substance abuse, mental health problems, etc.) on social opprobrium and mistreatment.  To be sure, this is a factor, even an important one.  But the parts of the discussion I find problematic are

1. the particular blaming of the LDS Church and its doctrines and its leaders and its members for teen suicides in circumstances where the welfare of the children seems to be a pretext for attacking the Church;
2. the nigh-unto-complete absence of any serious discussion of the contributory effects of the "gay lifestyle" and/or "homosexual behavior" itself (this is one of the reasons I have found the Netherlands study to be so interesting);
3. the overall lack of decorum and civility demonstrated by hysterical, mean-spirited, and agenda-driven rhetoric deployed against good and decent people, which rhetoric appears to be deployed not as a means of persuasion, but rather to bully, to coerce, and to defame; and
4. the tactic of poisoning the minds of gay LDS teens with falsehoods and slanders about the LDS Church, telling those teens that their fellow Latter-day Saints all around them "hate" them, that prophets and apostles who they have looked up to their entire lives "hate" them, that everything they have grown up believing to be good is evil, and that "shocking" numbers of gay LDS teens are killing themselves.

So my message to my fellow Latter-day Saints is this: Don't listen to the enemies and the critics of the Church who are vilifying us and our beliefs.  The best thing we can do is reach out in love and compassion to teens struggling with feelings about homosexuality (the D. News article above is a good place to start).  We can and should counter the poisonous, hateful narrative being perpetuated by the enemies of our faith and directed at our youth.  We can and should encourage teens toward stronger religious commitment and devotion (see the American Journal of Epidemiology article above).  If any of us have previously made jokes or demeaning remarks about homosexuals, let us repent of such things and commit to abstain from such communications in the future.  If any of us are in a position to advise or influence a family or individual that is mistreating or shunning a teenager (or anyone else, for that matter) because of his same-sex attraction, let us remind such persons of the longstanding counsel given to us by our leaders (in addition to the Deseret News article linked to above) (emphases added):

Quote

Some Latter-day Saints face the confusion and pain that result when a man or a woman engages in sexual behavior with a person of the same sex, or even when a person has erotic feelings that could lead toward such behavior. How should Church leaders, parents, and other members of the Church react when faced with the religious, emotional, and family challenges that accompany such behavior or feelings? What do we say to a young person who reports that he or she is attracted toward or has erotic thoughts or feelings about persons of the same sex? How should we respond when a person announces that he is a homosexual or she is a lesbian and that scientific evidence “proves” he or she was “born that way”? How do we react when persons who do not share our beliefs accuse us of being intolerant or unmerciful when we insist that erotic feelings toward a person of the same sex are irregular and that any sexual behavior of that nature is sinful?

...In the midst of the challenges and choices of mortal life, we are all under the Savior’s commandment to “love one another” (John 15:12, 17). As the First Presidency said in a recent message:

Quote

 

“We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us.” 

 

Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right.

...

Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.

...

After reaffirming the sinful nature of “fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior,” the Presidency added:

Quote

“Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior. (See Isa. 53:4–5; Mosiah 4:2–3.)”

Similarly, in a conference address on this same subject, President Gordon B. Hinckley said: “I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.”

...

Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see 3 Ne. 18:22–23, 30, 32). 

...

Church leaders are sometimes asked whether there is any place in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for persons with homosexual or lesbian susceptibilities or feelings. Of course there is. 

...

Another important source of help is the strengthening influence of loving brothers and sisters. All should understand that persons (and their family members) struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction are in special need of the love and encouragement that is a clear responsibility of Church members, who have signified by covenant their willingness “to bear one another’s burdens” (Mosiah 18:8) “and so fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think your quotes left out key parts and altered the meaning.  So I provided them for those who didn't go to the link.

That's a bad rap. I reject it.

I understand how something can be taken out of context to alter a meaning. It is a nasty practice, and I won't engage in it. I certainly didn't in this case.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, let's take a quick look at how many false or misleading headlines have been generated because of Wendy Montgomery and her unverified and unverifiable statistic:

From Wendy Montgomery:

 "It’s an important conversation to have, as long as it is addressed in the right/safe way and doesn’t add to the problem. I can’t control the many reposts and everything others are saying. So the claim of me “being irresponsible with the numbers” should be laid at the feet of those who have posted inflammatory offshoot articles, comments, memes or posts.

I have only spoken to the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune about this. They sought me out, not the other way around. I was VERY clear with both Tad Walch (DN) and Peggy Fletcher Stack (SLTrib) that my numbers were unverified, that I didn’t have death dates, or all the victim’s names."

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We must judge it with what the listener/reader might conclude.  This talk (and the corresponding pamphlet) was directed to young men.  I don't think you can safely conclude how a teenage boy would interpret it.  That's the problem I have with it.  And I do not have a hostile mindset toward President Packer.  In his 4+ decades of service as an apostle, he did much to expound on LDS doctrine and tirelessly teach us as church members.  I honor him for that.

I was there when the talk was delivered. I know how it was received. I remember the pamphlet being distributed thereafter. There has never been any question as to Elder Packer's meaning -- whether or not he was advocating gratuitous violence -- until recent years when the gay rights lobby has come to the fore.

He was an apostle. He was no criminal, and he did not condone criminal behavior.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've said how I interpret what he said. I believe my interpretation is at least as reasonable as yours; I would say more so.

And yes, if an apostle teaches that you are not required to stand still and take it when somebody tries to assault you sexually or otherwise, I'm going to embrace that teaching.

The problem is not what Elder Packer told the missionary. Physical force may very well have been called fot  the problem is Elder Packard gave a talk in General Conference telling young men it was ok to assault gay men WITHOUT explaining when such action was appropriate and when it was a criminal act. SOME young men MAY think it is ok to assault any gay person no matter what the action. THAT is what Elder Packard is condemned for as he should be. If he wanted to say you have a right to defend yourself against sexual assault he should have made that clear. He didn't. Now unfortunately many people are left with the impression that the Mormon church condones physical violence against gays. To my knowledge, Elder Packard never clarified what he was referring to, even in the pamphlet that was later published. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

The problem is not what Elder Packer told the missionary. Physical force may very well have been called fot  the problem is Elder Packard gave a talk in General Conference telling young men it was ok to assault gay men WITHOUT explaining when such action was appropriate and when it was a criminal act. SOME young men MAY think it is ok to assault any gay person no matter what the action. THAT is what Elder Packard is condemned for as he should be. If he wanted to say you have a right to defend yourself against sexual assault he should have made that clear. He didn't. Now unfortunately many people are left with the impression that the Mormon church condones physical violence against gays. To my knowledge, Elder Packard never clarified what he was referring to, even in the pamphlet that was later published. 

You got his name right the first time. It is Elder Packer, not "Packard."

And as I said above, I was present on the occasion when the talk was delivered. I well remember the distribution of the pamphlet. There has not been widespread public misconstrual or mischaracterization of his meaning until recent years, when there has been an unseemly effort to vilify him in public.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

From Wendy Montgomery:

 "It’s an important conversation to have, as long as it is addressed in the right/safe way and doesn’t add to the problem. I can’t control the many reposts and everything others are saying. So the claim of me “being irresponsible with the numbers” should be laid at the feet of those who have posted inflammatory offshoot articles, comments, memes or posts.

I have only spoken to the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune about this. They sought me out, not the other way around. I was VERY clear with both Tad Walch (DN) and Peggy Fletcher Stack (SLTrib) that my numbers were unverified, that I didn’t have death dates, or all the victim’s names."

Yes, I get that she now probably regrets doing what she did.  But she is the one who broadcast these "statistics."  She is the one that released them publicly.  She is the one that posted them on Facebook (IIRC).  She is the one that took them to Affirmation, published them as factual and established during a public conference meeting of that organization, and had Affirmation (she is a board member, BTW) publish these statistics online as factual and established ("It’s not acceptable that, as one conference participant shared, there have been at least 32 documented LGBT Mormon suicides since the release of the new policy.").  I should note that, as a board member of Affirmation she would seem to be in a position to have them modify or qualify or annotate its online statement about her statistics, but she has not yet done so.

So she's not really being, well, accurate when she says she "has only spoken to the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune about this."  And since she represented these statistics  to Affirmation as being "documented," then that seems to substantially cut against her claim that she "was VERY clear . . . that [her] numbers were unverified."

So is she untrustworthy?  I'm inclined to think . . . not.  I think she's just very, very sloppy.  And she's letting emotions guide her actions, apparently to the point of overriding reason and accuracy.  She's been playing with fire and apparently only now coming to realize it.

-Smac

Edited February 2, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You got his name right the first time. It is Elder Packer, not "Packard."

And as I said above, I was present on the occasion when the talk was delivered. I well remember the distribution of the pamphlet. There has not been widespread public misconstrual or mischaracterization of his meaning until recent years, when there has been an unseemly effort to vilify him in public.

To be fair, some LDS young men, since this talk, have been violent to those who are gay.  I'm not saying they felt justified in their attacks.  I'm just saying we simply don't know the mind of another--and often don't know why they do what they do.  As Californiaboy suggested the problem is not with what Elder Packer said to the boy on that occasion.  it was that the talk itself did not spell out reasoning that would justify violence.  His only explanation was that the boy that got knocked out was gay.  The reporting missionary felt badly about it and was surprised he wasn't a big deal.  If the missionary who punched him out was attacked, why would he feel badly?  It wouldn't make sense. 

Thus, I agree with Californiaboy on this, Scott. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by stemelbow

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I get that she now probably regrets doing what she did.

I haven't read where she stated that.  Has she?

I doubt that she regrets doing the service she is doing and helping others in pain.  She has been honest and I doubt she regrets that either. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To be fair, some LDS young men, since this talk, have been violent to those who are gay.  I'm not saying they felt justified in their attacks.  I'm just saying we simply don't know the mind of another--and often don't know why they do what they do.  As Californiaboy suggested the problem is not with what Elder Packer said to the boy on that occasion.  it was that the talk itself did not spell out reasoning that would justify violence.  His only explanation was that the boy that got knocked out was gay.  The reporting missionary felt badly about it and was surprised he wasn't a big deal.  If the missionary who punched him out was attacked, why would he feel badly?  It wouldn't make sense. 

Thus, I agree with Californiaboy on this, Scott. 

I'm curious.  If a general authority were to encourage a young woman to resist unwanted and profoundly inappropriate (predatory?) sexual advances, even to the point of using violence to protect herself, would you take exception to that?

FAIR has a pretty good article on this issue.

An LDS missionary making unwanted sexual advances on his companion (who has to sleep in the same room with him and spend 24/7 with him) would seem to typify the concept of "sexual harassment" that we see so often discussed in the context of women.  Are you suggesting that the victim of such profoundly inappropriate behavior just . . . let it happen?  Or that he should resist it but not to the point of using violence to protect himself?  What if he is physically capable of protecting himself from unwanted sexual advances?  Should he nonetheless refrain from protecting himself simply because the sexual aggressor is a homosexual?  Just trying to figure out the rules here . . . 

-Smac