Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[ALarson]

Just now, smac97 said:

Indeed.  But that does not preclude analysis and assessment of this highly dubious statistic.

"Highly dubious"?  If that were true, would the leaders have addressed it and responded?

Again, why not move past calling someone a liar and follow the example the church leaders have set here with their response published in the Deseret News. Many youth and families are struggling and are in pain over this issue.  How about putting your energy into finding a solution rather than attacking Wendy Montgomery? 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

In other words, this isn't a matter of parents not reporting the cause of death because they want privacy. Parent finds child dead (shutter at the very thought) calls 911; first responders investigate; report violent death; Health Department investigates; etc.

Families might hide letters or conversations that explain the car accident or drug overdose was not accidental.  However, I find it unlikely that they then would want to share with a total stranger that information in such significant numbers, especially if their concern is to get the Church or public to change their attitudes towards and treatment of LGBT teens.

Anyone know if a family can request police/health department to not publicly release the name?  Are the names along with the numbers released by the government or are they kept confidential?

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Families might hide letters or conversations that explain the car accident or drug overdose was not accidental.  However, I find it unlikely that they then would want to share with a total stranger that information in such significant numbers, especially if their concern is to get the Church or public to change their attitudes towards and treatment of LGBT teens.

Anyone know if a family can request police/health department to not publicly release the name?  Are the names along with the numbers released by the government or are they kept confidential?

I just posted above about 2 instances that I personally am aware of where a suicide was reported as an accident.  I have to believe there are other cases like this.  However, I also believe that many suicides are obvious and cannot be hidden.

I don't believe that any details about a death can be publicly released (death certificate info, etc.) without the family's permission for a certain amount of years (unless there is a crime involved, etc.).  That's why when doing genealogy, you can't get access to "recent" death certificates.  Isn't that correct?

 

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There are ways that family members can avoid having it reported as a suicide.  I personally know of 2 instances where the doctors put down that it was an accidental death (when the parents knew it was suicide because notes were left and other attempts had been made).  One drove their car into a center divide on the freeway and the other took pills mixing it with alcohol.  Now, there are suicides that are obviously suicides, but many are not obvious.  That's all I'm saying here.  

According to the Deseret new article

"preliminary numbers for November and December in the Utah medical examiner's database show 25 total deaths in the 14-18 age group, with 10 suicides, said Teresa Brechlin, the violence prevention coordinator at the Utah Department of Health.In fact, the number of Utah suicide deaths actually decreased during the final two months of 2015 compared to the final two months of 2014"

I wonder how it is going to be explained that the total number of suicides (specifically of suicides of LDS, Homosexuals)  reported by wendy is more than the total number of deaths reported by the state.

Is someone hiding bodies?

[salgare]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Indeed.  But that does not preclude analysis and assessment of this highly dubious statistic.

Society is harmed by falsehoods like this, just as it is when people make false claims about rape, or child abuse, or racial hostility, and so on.  I don't think we should excuse or look the other way from such behavior by waving our hands and saying "Maybe there are more important issues [than false rape claims, or false child abuse claims, or racebaiting, or false allegations intended to vilify a religious minority]."

Thanks,

-Smac

I can see that, and I've also heard you agree with the need for tolerance and love at local/personal levels. So I think we are good.  But it's been a good thread, I'm hoping for 20+ pages

Edited January 29, 2016 by salgare

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

According to the Deseret new article

"preliminary numbers for November and December in the Utah medical examiner's database show 25 total deaths in the 14-18 age group, with 10 suicides, said Teresa Brechlin, the violence prevention coordinator at the Utah Department of Health.In fact, the number of Utah suicide deaths actually decreased during the final two months of 2015 compared to the final two months of 2014"

I wonder how it is going to be explained that the total number of suicides (specifically of suicides of LDS, Homosexuals)  reported by wendy is more than the total number of deaths reported by the state.

Is someone hiding bodies?

I don't know.  Like I said, there is a lot we don't know here (maybe there were other ages involved rather than in the 14-18 years group?).  But instead of getting hung up on numbers (which is happening on both sides), how about stop attacking and start trying to find a solution (again, which is what the church leaders have asked us to do)?

Edited January 29, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"Highly dubious"?  If that were true, would the leaders have addressed it and responded?

Have you read the Trib article referenced throughout this thread?  Here's the money quote:

Quote

From the policy's onset through the end of 2015, Montgomery, a leader of the Mama Dragons support group for the families of gay Latter-day Saints, says she had counted 26 suicides of young LGBT Mormons in Utah — 23 males, one female and two transgender individuals — between ages 14 and 20.

She tallied another six in other states — though none of the reported deaths could be specifically tied to the policy.

Montgomery's statistics were shared at a recent meeting in Los Angeles of Affirmation, a support group for gay Mormons.

"The number of suicides reported to Wendy Montgomery is shocking," says John Gustav-Wrathall, Affirmation's newly installed president. "I've never seen anything like it in the history of my involvement with the organization."

Trouble is, the number far exceeds the suicide figures collected by the Utah Department of Health.

Preliminary figures for November and December show 10 suicides in the Beehive State for people ages 14 to 20, with two more cases "undetermined."

"We monitor the numbers [of youth suicides] very closely. We review them every month," says Teresa Brechlin, who works in the department's violence- and injury-prevention program. "If we had seen such a huge spike, we would have been investigating it."

Had there been any mention of the LDS Church's policy on gays, her department "would have noted that," Brechlin adds. "We have not seen that at all."

Given A) the admitted absence of any corroborating evidence pertaining to the statistic (see the link the OP), and B) the findings by the Tribune (not exactly a shill for the LDS Church), please explain why you take exception to people characterizing the statistic as "dubious."

I'm all ears.

Quote

Again, why not move past calling someone a liar and follow the example the church leaders have set here with their response published in the Deseret News. Many youth and families are struggling and are in pain over this issue.  How about putting your energy into finding a solution rather than attacking Wendy Montgomery? 

First, I don't think I've called her "a liar."

Second, I think we can work on helping teens, but that does not preclude analysis and assessment of this highly dubious statistic.

Third, society is harmed by falsehoods like this, just as it is when people make false claims about rape, or child abuse, or racial hostility, and so on.  I don't think we should excuse or look the other way from such behavior by waving our hands and saying "Maybe there are more important issues [than false rape claims, or false child abuse claims, or racebaiting, or false allegations intended to vilify a religious minority]."

Fourth, helping LDS teens and repudiating vicious and false slanders against their religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive acts.  To the contrary, the latter facilitates the former.  A poster previously emphasized this point as made in a recent Archives of Suicide Research article (emphasis added):

Quote

There were two important clinical implications found in the current study. First, it may seem counterintuitive that when individuals choose to leave their religion in order to experience more self-acceptance that they inadvertently experience more risk for suicide. Clinicians should be aware that leaving one's religion of origin may add additional stressors that ultimately place a client at additional risk for suicide. Further, the negative impact felt from leaving one's religion due to conflict has a stronger impact than the positive indirect impact through a reduction in internalized homophobia.

The current campaign against the LDS Church is, I think, harmful to the very teens about which the campaigners claim to be concerned.  This campaign is similar in design and tactics to those used to train Palestinian children to fear and loathe Jews.  That is, an LDS teen struggling to address his religious beliefs and his same-sex attraction is all at once inundated with endless messages and declarations that the religion to which he belongs "hates" him.  That the General Authorities he has looked up to and admired "hate" him.  That some of his fellow Latter-day Saints "hate" him.  His worldview is upended.  All that he thought he knew was wrong.  Everyone, it seems, is telling him that his friends, his family, his church, "hate" him.  And let's keep in mind that these messages are not coming from his LDS friends and family and leaders, but from their enemies, people who are putting the vilest of words into the mouths of the Latter-day Saints.  "Your church, your leaders, and your fellow Mormons hate you" is the message being purveyed.  By enemies of the Latter-day Saints.  To the minds of impressionable and stressed-out LDS teenagers.

Have you given any thought to putting energy into discouraging that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 29, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This is also a possibility.  Although I would hope that no parent would lie about their child's suicide.  But, maybe she heard about some of them 2nd or 3rd hand (or more).  Again, I would like more information and details before I label someone a liar.

 

I believe she said immediate family members contacted her directly.  At least this is what has been reported since I didn't read her presentation.  I think I doublechecked this.  She may have qualified it as most or some while the reporter did not.  I will try and see if her presentation is online.  I just saw one on Affirmation speaking about it and couldn't find hers, but that was a quick effort.

If people have lied to her, I doubt it was the actual immediate family members and more likely people misrepresenting their relationship and pitching their assumptions as truth or others just making stuff up.  It could be done out of a sincere desire to bring attention to what they believe is a serious problem (not saying youth suicide is not, but if they are intending to indict the policy as a trigger, they may be wrong) or just disturbed individuals looking for attention.  I have unfortunately come across a few in my own face to face experience, so I know the possibility exists.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe she said immediate family members contacted her directly.  At least this is what has been reported since I didn't read her presentation.  I think I doublechecked this.  She may have qualified it as most or some while the reporter did not.  I will try and see if her presentation is online.  I just saw one on Affirmation speaking about it and couldn't find hers, but that was a quick effort.

If people have lied to her, I doubt it was the actual immediate family members and more likely people misrepresenting their relationship and pitching their assumptions as truth or others just making stuff up.  It could be done out of a sincere desire to bring attention to what they believe is a serious problem (not saying youth suicide is not, but if they are intending to indict the policy as a trigger, they may be wrong) or just disturbed individuals looking for attention.  I have unfortunately come across a few in my own face to face experience, so I know the possibility exists.

I believe so too.  I hope no one would do that, but I agree with what you wrote.  The real problem at getting to the whole truth here is that many parents and close family members simply do not want their names out there or the details of their family member's suicide.  Some may not have even known their child was gay (or want others to know this) or want to make public other details that are private.  It's all very sad and also very complicated.

Edited January 29, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Have you given any thought to putting energy into discouraging that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure and I agree that's wrong (and I've stressed to follow the example of our church leaders here).  But again, I wish people would stop getting hung up on the numbers as even 1 suicide is too many.   34 vs. 10?  Both are alarming and heart breaking.  More information needs to be known before a more accurate number is determined.  But, maybe that isn't possible and we will never know the actual number.  

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know.  Like I said, there is a lot we don't know here (maybe there were other ages involved rather than in the 14-18 years group?).  But instead of getting hung up on numbers (which is happening on both sides), how about stop attacking and start trying to find a solution (again, which is what the church leaders have asked us to do)?

When someone says that 'things need to change' and they use the number of suicides as their evidence for why things need to change, then getting hung up on the numbers is inevitable. 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sure and I agree that's wrong (and I've stressed to follow the example of our church leaders here).  But again, I wish people would stop getting hung up on the numbers as even 1 suicide is too many.   34 vs. 10?  Both are alarming and heart breaking.  More information needs to be known before a more accurate number is determined.  But, maybe that isn't possible and we will never know the actual number.  

I don't think you are understanding my perspective.  I am not hung up on numbers.  I am taking exception to what appears to be a serious falsehood or exaggeration about a very sensitive and difficult topic.

I am cognizant of the issue of rape.  I am concerned about it.  Part of that concern is the damage done to society by false rape allegations.

I am cognizant of the issue or racial discord.  I am concerned about it.  Part of that concern is the damage done to society by racebaiting and people creating race hoaxes.

I am cognizant of and concerned about challenges faced by teens in general, and by LDS teens in particular, and by LDS teens coping with same-sex attraction in particular.  Part of that concern is the damage done to society by fabricated suicide statistics, and by people hostile to the LDS Church going out and telling the world - and LDS teens - that their religion and their religion's leaders and members "hate" them.

Imagine, if you will, a group of bullies going online and targeting a particular teen in their school, and telling that teen that his family members and friends and associates and religious leaders all hate him.  Would you be okay with that?  Or would you, perhaps, take exception to such ugly and mean-spirited and damaging falsehoods?

More to the point, would you accept at face value the claim by the bullies that they are actually concerned about the welfare of the teen they've been targeting?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 29, 2016 by smac97

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

When someone says that 'things need to change' and they use the number of suicides as their evidence for why things need to change, then getting hung up on the numbers is inevitable. 

I agree.  But the truth is, there may not be a way to get to an accurate number.  Too many variables and too many private lives involved by those who don't want to go public.  If ALL those who had reported suicides of family members would actually come forward, we'd know if it was 34 or 10, but how likely is that? 

Just knowing that there were any suicides of our youth is enough for me to be alarmed and want to reach out where I can.  So, until and if we ever get an accurate number, how about  we move on and put our energy into discussing how we can follow what we've been asked to do by our leaders?   That's all I'm saying.

[Calm]

I do think it is important to challenge the claims of Montgomery to a certain extent because they are being tied to the policy and the Church itself as a trigger.  If OTOH, no suicides were actually tied to the policy (possible given the comment Smac gave by Brechlin) then serious resources could be diverted from actual helpful avenues because those who are concerned turn their time, attention and resources to working against the policy because they see it as such a huge problem (which it might be if the stats are accurate) as opposed to focusing on working on reconciling within the Church, family education, etc.  There is also the possibility that the claims the policy is causing suicides may add to the strong attacks on the Church leadership choices and accusations of prejudice and even hate towards LGBT that have already occurred.  I think we have actually seen some of this in the past week (reading comments on articles).  I have seen this happening in my own family, a gay young man being told the Church is no place for him, that it is hateful, etc.  OTOH, as far as I know he has not personally experienced any attacks from church members or anything close to what is being claimed by those pushing him to leave.  I am not saying there isn't room for change (I love what Wendy Ulrich had to say in the DN article about never knowing who was listening when careless comments are made...and likely some quite derogatory ones at time), just that there is room for acceptance, both current and potential, which many of those pushing the alleged harm of the policy do not accept and who point to these claims of suicide as proof.

As long as people are making claims that the policy is leading to an increase in suicides, I think responses challenging this are appropriate.  I don't think it needs to be belaboured or even worse, used to discredit other claims (each claim should be treated separately imo).

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I do think it is important to challenge the claims of Montgomery to a certain extent because they are being tied to the policy and the Church itself as a trigger.  If OTOH, no suicides were actually tied to the policy (possible given the comment Smac gave by Brechlin) then serious resources could be diverted from actual helpful avenues because those who are concerned turn their time, attention and resources to working against the policy because they see it as such a huge problem (which it might be if the stats are accurate) as opposed to focusing on working on reconciling within the Church, family education, etc.  There is also the possibility that the claims the policy is causing suicides may add to the strong attacks on the Church leadership choices and accusations of prejudice and even hate towards LGBT that have already occurred.  I think we have actually seen some of this in the past week (reading comments on articles).  I have seen this happening in my own family, a gay young man being told the Church is no place for him, that it is hateful, etc.  OTOH, as far as I know he has not personally experienced any attacks from church members or anything close to what is being claimed by those pushing him to leave.  I am not saying there isn't room for change (I love what Wendy Ulrich had to say in the DN article about never knowing who was listening when careless comments are made...and likely some quite derogatory ones at time), just that there is room for acceptance, both current and potential, which many of those pushing the alleged harm of the policy do not accept and who point to these claims of suicide as proof.

As long as people are making claims that the policy is leading to an increase in suicides, I think responses challenging this are appropriate.  I don't think it needs to be belaboured or even worse, used to discredit other claims (each claim should be treated separately imo).

Yes, the reasons behind the suicides are more important (IMO) than nit picking about the actual numbers (although both are important information to have, of course).  I'm more inclined to try to focus on the actual reason(s) any of these suicides have happened.  Those claims should be examined more closely for sure.

Edited January 29, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

And so, you don't care?  They are in someone's ward, Stake and State.  And, there ARE kids in your ward, Stake and State who are struggling with this issue (quietly and privately most likely). Just because it hasn't personally touched your life yet, doesn't mean it's not happening or not something you should be concerned about.

I am reading the thread backwards because I don't know where I stopped and various glitches interfering with straightforward reading.

I think I already responded to this post, but have just read the post that it was responding to (with comprehension, I may have skimmed it before).  I think Danzo makes it clear we should take great care (his "Every Suicide is a tragedy and deserves individual attention, compassion, understanding and love among those that know and deal with the victim and the family" is pretty clear imo)...both in doing and feeling, but he is suggesting that care is more effective if done not for "what ifs" and not to avoid blame for things that haven't yet occurred or don't actually fall within our experience (such as any teen deaths triggered by the policy in his as evidence by no teens suicides in his stake in the past months), but for what is really going on.  Not accepting blame for something one had no impact on is not the same thing as saying it isn't something he should be concerned about, but it does make sense for him to put his time and resources into stuff that he is aware of.  That can lead to greater awareness overall for one thing.  See his example of his dealing with an actual suicide and think of how understanding the why it happened can help with others who might be struggling with the same thing.  He just didn't assume the surface reason was the trigger and share his sympathy and support of the family.  He put time into listening and learning the real dynamics and this has, imo, made him more likely to be able to help in other similar situations before it gets bad.  How many women in his acquaintance actually have problems with tax debt?  Even if he put a huge amount of time into helping families avoid tax debt, that won't help those who have the problem this woman actually had of communicating negative issues with her spouse....but if he keeps an eye out for relationships that appear a bit too non confrontative maybe he can clue in on something and help that person open up before they go to the point of no return in their thoughts (of course he will never know if he has actually prevented that, but better that than knowing he hasn't). 

I can relate to the situation myself, my husband avoids dealing directly with negative issues and it has caused some significant problems in our relationship over the years (hopefully counseling has resolved most of it, but I fear there is some that he is not speaking of because of his insecurity on how I might react...insecurity not based on reality, but on childhood experiences).  I in the past could easily deal with the concrete aspects of the problems, removing the immediate trigger if I happened to figure it out on my own (sometimes impossible because the trigger turned out to be his projection and not something I actually did, counseling was an eye opening experience), but removing the trigger didn't prevent future occurrences of the same issues, which got worse over time until he went into a very significant depression...at which time I pressured him into family counseling which then may or may not have dealt with the root cause (he had private sessions as well as couple), but at least he appears to be better at communicating many negative issues though he still avoids any criticism of me directly.  

I would love it if another man was able to recognize this behaviour in my husband and help him feel comfortable enough to talk about it.  It really helped when he was able to let loose in the counseling session, but that doesn't mean it was all solved.  Maybe there is someone out there and that is why we haven't had a repeat of that depression.  I imagine there will be people in Danzo's acquaintance that will benefit from his experience now.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Calm

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am reading the thread backwards because I don't know where I stopped and various glitches interfering with straightforward reading.

I think I already responded to this post, but have just read the post that it was responding to (with comprehension, I may have skimmed it before).  I think Danzo makes it clear we should take great care (his "Every Suicide is a tragedy and deserves individual attention, compassion, understanding and love among those that know and deal with the victim and the family" is pretty clear imo)...both in doing and feeling, but he is suggesting that care is more effective if done not for "what ifs" and not to avoid blame for things that haven't yet occurred or don't actually fall within our experience (such as any teen deaths triggered by the policy in his as evidence by no teens suicides in his stake in the past months), but for what is really going on.  Not accepting blame for something one had no impact on is not the same thing as saying it isn't something he should be concerned about, but it does make sense for him to put his time and resources into stuff that he is aware of.  That can lead to greater awareness overall for one thing.  See his example of his dealing with an actual suicide and think of how understanding the why it happened can help with others who might be struggling with the same thing.  He just didn't assume the surface reason was the trigger and share his sympathy and support of the family.  He put time into listening and learning the real dynamics and this has, imo, made him more likely to be able to help in other similar situations before it gets bad.  How many women in his acquaintance actually have problems with tax debt?  Even if he put a huge amount of time into helping families avoid tax debt, that won't help those who have the problem this woman actually had of communicating negative issues with her spouse....but if he keeps an eye out for relationships that appear a bit too non confrontative maybe he can clue in on something and help that person open up before they go to the point of no return in their thoughts (of course he will never know if he has actually prevented that, but better that than knowing he hasn't). 

I can relate to the situation myself, my husband avoids dealing directly with negative issues and it has caused some significant problems in our relationship over the years (hopefully counseling has resolved most of it, but I fear there is some that he is not speaking of because of his insecurity on how I might react...insecurity not based on reality, but on childhood experiences).  I in the past could easily deal with the concrete aspects of the problems, removing the immediate trigger if I happened to figure it out on my own (sometimes impossible because the trigger turned out to be his projection and not something I actually did, counseling was an eye opening experience, but it didn't prevent future occurrences of the same issues, which got worse over time until he went into a very significant depression...at which time I pressured him into family counseling which then may or may not have dealt with the root cause (he had private sessions as well as couple), but at least he appears to be better at communicating many negative issues though he still avoids any criticism of me directly.  

I would love it if another man was able to recognize this behaviour in my husband and help him feel comfortable enough to talk about it.  It really helped when he was able to let loose in the counseling session, but that doesn't mean it was all solved.  Maybe there is someone out there and that is why we haven't had a repeat of that depression.  I imagine there will be people in Danzo's acquaintance that will benefit from his experience now.

Thank you for taking the time to understand and see what I was trying to say.

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There are risks to the endangered population when specifics like this are shared...

http://www.lgbtmap.org/talking-about-suicide-and-lgbt-populations

In your link it states this:

Quote

Expansive news coverage of several recent suicide deaths of youth known or believed to be gay has resulted in an unprecedented national discussion about suicide risk among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Some of that coverage, however, oversimplified or sensationalized a number of the underlying issues, and in some cases may have created the potential for a phenomenon known as suicide contagion.

What is resulting from Montgomery sharing this likely inflated numbers?  Extensive new coverage of claimed recent suicide deaths of gay youth.  Accusations that the cause of these deaths was one thing---the new policy.  Sensational remarks like we are all culpable for these deaths, etc.

It would appear that the very things that are occurring due to Montgomery's choice to present the information as well as the blogger (Downing?) who is referenced in the opening post are potentially contributing to suicide contagion.

Good intentions don't always lead to good results, no matter how sincere people are.  I was glad to see that the Mama Dragons facebook page had linked to an article on suicide contagion and had cautioned people, resulting in at least one person removing some commentary on her own page.

Perhaps not giving names is sufficient to prevent contribution to the problem, but attaching ages, gender and locations (states) seems to me to create the image of actual teen sucides well enough even without names and hometowns.  I would be interested to hear of any evidence suggesting otherwise.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Medicating people to the point we often do to keep them from suicide is a band-aid approach which carries with it something quite unfortunate--some might say as unfortunate as suicide.  That suicide might be linked to altitude is something to build off of, I guess. 

Medication may actually lead to more suicides.

http://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/suicide/

Antidepressant use, especially in children needs to be explored more.  And if LDS are more prone to seeking out doctors' help for depression for their children as well as themselves with the result of high usage of antidepressant as indicated by some studies (possibly inappropriately), education on keeping an eye on their children when using such is essential.  I don't know how much is done.  My daughter's psychiatrist was clear with us about it but didn't spend much time on it, but since we were already familiar with the possibility (and I do keep tabs on my daughter about it, asking her if her depression is getting greater, any thoughts of suicide etc., especially in winter when she probably gets hit by SAD as well) I don't know if it was typical.  If it was, I would hope there would be greater emphasis being pushed in the future.  Attention and research could help with this, but these might be diverted to less helpful avenues by false claims inflaming the public's concerns about other things.  I would like to see a study of parents' awareness of potential side effects from antidepressants and what kind of behaviour that results in so that gaps could be addressed.  Anyone aware of that going on or being suggested by suicide advocates (or would that be antisuicide advocates)?

[ALarson]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am reading the thread backwards because I don't know where I stopped and various glitches interfering with straightforward reading.

I think I already responded to this post, but have just read the post that it was responding to (with comprehension, I may have skimmed it before).  I think Danzo makes it clear we should take great care (his "Every Suicide is a tragedy and deserves individual attention, compassion, understanding and love among those that know and deal with the victim and the family" is pretty clear imo)...

This may be true, but Danzo's post that I quoted wasn't his first on this thread inferring that since none of these suicides occurred in his ward or area, that meant they weren't happening or that the church's "new policy has been an unparalleled success in keeping these kids from committing suicide".  That's what I was addressing.

 Thank you for the additional information though.

Edited January 29, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

In other words I think the point you are trying to make would be appropriate if the parable of the Good Samaritan involved the Samaritan having to renounce revealed and eternal truth in order to provide help to the man. That is what the author is advocating for.

 

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

What would the Priest and Levite have had to give up to go help the Samaritan?

Not revealed and eternal truth, certainly.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  But the truth is, there may not be a way to get to an accurate number.  Too many variables and too many private lives involved by those who don't want to go public.  If ALL those who had reported suicides of family members would actually come forward, we'd know if it was 34 or 10, but how likely is that? 

Just knowing that there were any suicides of our youth is enough for me to be alarmed and want to reach out where I can.  So, until and if we ever get an accurate number, how about  we move on and put our energy into discussing how we can follow what we've been asked to do by our leaders?   That's all I'm saying.

I agree; the Church’s response as reported doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the accuracy of the statistics, but with any occurrence of LDS LGBT teen suicide in general.

As long as a society pushes for values that run contrary to the plan of happiness, those souls who have given place for the plan in their lives have choices to make, and unfortunately where pressures increase against the plan, tired souls can gravitate toward poorer choices.

LDS caught up in such pressure are not in a good position to shepherd their youth, yet of course they naturally feel duty-bound to try. So even when their methods and efforts to help are misguided, corrupted and counter-productive, their pain (the youth and the adults they rely on) is still real and the ministers of Christ still address that.

[Calm]

Quote

I can't imagine being told that I would never be able to have sex with a woman and that I would have to marry a man to qualify for exaltation.

And not even feeling comfortable about fantasizing about a relationship because that could be seen as encouraging inappropriate feelings, lust, etc.

And being told they need to endure to the end, and then crossover and all their problems would be gone.  Homosexuality is left in the mortal realm.  For those that idea appeals to, what does it turn into if life becomes to much bear? It is the one last strand of possibility for a normal life left, for happiness and romantic eternal companion love, all waiting in the life to come.  When one feels trapped in this life and you believe even the worst of the next life is going to be a wonder, makes taking that step intentionally way too easy to contemplate.  Thankfully dying is usually painful, even with pills, you get caught, have second thoughts and fight it...well, enough fear of suffering there that slows it down some.  For me in my own suicidal experience, my son saved my life even though he had no clue as he sat in the other room, a three year old never making a peep, just playing with legos.  I knew I wouldn't really be free if I left him trapped by my decision.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Calm

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would like to hear your perspective on one other facet of this issue.  Namely, the inflammatory rhetoric about the policy change.  I could give lots of examples, but I think that's probably unnecessary.  Suffice it to say that many people critical of the Church resorted to all sorts of extremely harsh characterizations of the Church's policy.  There are accusations that the LDS Church "hates" homosexuals.  Words like "cruel," "spiteful," "hate mongering," "bigotry," "maliciousness," "fecklessness," "attack," "just wrong," "disgusting," "sick," "close-minded" "treats gays as less than people," "demeaning," and so on.  Here's a goodie: "The souls of gay children who commit suicide will haunt these misled false apostles. Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing."  

So my cup runneth over in terms of people screaming at the Church.  Not talking.  Not reasoning.  Not explaining.  Not analyzing.  No exposition.  No fair-minded analysis.  Just lots and lots and lots of hateful, emotion-laden rhetoric.  The above-referenced hateful rhetoric appears to have been calculated to vilify the LDS Church, to essentially telegraph to gay Latter-day Saints the message that "Hey!  Your Church hates you!"  There's an awful lot of critics speaking "for" the Church, of critics "explaining" the policy change, and the explanations invariably assume that the Brethren are acting with the worst of motives.  

I've seen this before.  As an attorney I have seen people who represent themselves in court (and even a few attorneys) who are facing a legal issue that they don't like except that it yields a result not to their liking.  For example, people getting evicted following a foreclosure are facing a very difficult, very emotional experience of a judge telling them that they have to leave their home.  I run into this sort of thing all the time at "Immediate Occupancy" hearings.  The purpose of these hearings is to require the tenant to show up in court and explain why he should not be evicted.  I have had dozens of experiences of standing in front of a judge and explaining all the statutory and procedural steps I have taken in the eviction process.  The judge usually grunts, and then turns to the tenant and gives him/her an opportunity to explain their position.  With perhaps two or three exceptions (out of hundreds), the tenants faced with this reality don't really have a legal leg to stand on.  So they resort to . . . name-calling.  Invectives.  Emotional pleas.  Irrelevant tangents.  Anger.  You name it.  Anything other than what the judge wants, which is a dispassionate legal analysis of why they should be allowed to stay in their home.  The judge then signs an order, gives some verbal instructions to the tenant, and that's about it.  In this process most judges are firm, but kind with the tenants.  It's an effective, but still emotional and difficult, process.  Although I have become accustomed to these proceedings, I don't enjoy them.  It's not an enjoyable experience.  But it is a necessary one.

At present I tend to analogize opposition to the Church's policy to the types of "opposition" I hear at these Immediate Occupancy hearings.  Heavy doses of anger and invective and emotion, but not much in the way of substantive analysis or even fair-mindedness.  These things arise generally out of A) an unpleasant but necessary course of action (evicting people after they've been foreclosed on), B) the absence of meaningful or substantive counterarguments (the tenants lacking a legal basis for their desire to stay in the home), D) ignorance (often willful) of many of the considerations at hand, all combining and leading to D) a whole bunch of irrelevant and unfair and unreasoned invective spewed forth by otherwise reasonably decent people against good and decent people (little ol' me, and the judge).

Likewise, the invective described above about the Church's policy appears to arise out of A) an unpleasant but necessary course of action (the Church adopting policies in light of recent innovations in society, such as same-sex marriages), B) the absence of meaningful or substantive counterarguments (I really haven't seen any reasoned, critical analysis of the policy change), D) ignorance (often willful) of many of the considerations at hand, all combining and leading to D) a whole bunch of irrelevant and unfair and unreasoned invective spewed forth by otherwise reasonably decent people against good and decent people (the Brethren).

With all of this in mind, here are my two questions:

1. Can you provide a reasoned, dispassionate assessment of the Church's policy (including, I think, the reasons for it as explained by Elder Christofferson, and also taking into account Elder Nelson's remarks)?

2. Do you think the inflammatory rhetoric about the policy by critics of the Church has perhaps contributed to gay LDS teens feeling alienated from their faith, feeling scared at being told that people they have previously looked up to and revered (the Brethren, and their fellow Latter-day Saints) now "hate" them?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Hi Smac

 

I don't have time for a long answer but I thought I would give you a short answer for now and maybe more later.

1:  I know what the church says is its reason behind the policy.  1:  Same sex marriage is considered a sin.  The church cannot alter what at least the Church believes God is commanding on this.   Thus the non compromising position and automatic label of apostate on same sex couples as well as requirement for a DC.  Further for children of such marriages they church believes that is in their best interest to not cause conflict between the home life the child is in and what the church teaches about same sex marriage. 

How is that?  I have all sorts of reasons why I disagree with both but you asked for a simple dispassionate assessment so there you have it.   I may add more later but I am in a rush.

 

2:  Yes I think the critics as well as the defenders as well as the church policy have contributed to LDS teens feeling alienated from their faith and certainly the criticism of the policy and of the LDS Leaders have likely causes some youth to become disenchanted to one degree or another.  Whether that is a result that is deserved or not is another topic.  I am not one who think the brethren and what they do are above criticism or reproach.  Actions, teachings and policies have consequences.  Many here say that the Church has no responsibility if someone acts badly and commits harm to themselves because of what the Church teaches or does.  Ok. Then how can the Church take credit from the good things that come from what it teaches and does as well? You know the strong families, moral virtues, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

God establishes the Law of Moses.  Christ comes and puts and end to that law.  Christ then uses a parable to explain why we should choose love and service to our neighbor over religious dogma.

I'm not confused.

God who establshed the law of Moses and Christ who came to end it (or, more correctly, to fulfill it) are one and the same.

When I was in the mission field, we taught people that Christ is the God of the Old Testament. It's basic Mormon doctrine.