Scott Lloyd Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, ALarson said: Did the suicides actually take place in Utah or were the teens just from Utah (with their family still living in Utah who reported it to Montgomery)? I'm trying to find how it was stated, and will look at it again. Just wondering if some of the 18 -20 years age group no longer lived at home or in Utah? Edited to add: , I found how it was stated and it does state that "Twenty-eight of these suicides occured in Utah". So, were there 28 deaths in the state of Utah for the age group of between 14 and 20 years? That's the question here, not if they were all reported as suicides. Twenty-eight accidental deaths of teenagers in the state over a two-month period -- other than traffic fatalities -- would be an attention-getter among state agencies and the news media. It would be unusual enough that people would begin to suspect suicide, even if the incidents were not reported as such. Edited January 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
consiglieri Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That's neither an accurate nor a just characterization. You would know.
consiglieri Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I hadn't suggested it, but it did occur to me -- and it would work against the supposition that there is an unusual spike in the number of incidents with the Church policy being the root cause. It is important to try as best we can to establish the truth of things.
consiglieri Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You're not getting the point. The Church does not teach anyone "to hate or shun gay persons" -- "outright" or otherwise. You can say this all day long, Scott, and it looks like you have. And you are entitled to your opinion. Though I recall you recently upbraided another poster for stating her opinion as a fact, which is exactly what you are doing here. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: You would know. I'm not going to get into a contest with you over who can be the snarkiest. The topic here is too serious for that. Take your cheap shots elsewhere. 3
consiglieri Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm not going to get into a contest with you over who can be the snarkiest. The topic here is too serious for that. Take your cheap shots elsewhere. LOL! I was just mimicking BusyBee when he said the exact same thing to my "troll" comment on the previous page. Does your opprobrium apply equally to BusyBee?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: You can say this all day long, Scott, and it looks like you have. And you are entitled to your opinion. Though I recall you recently upbraided another poster for stating her opinion as a fact, which is exactly what you are doing here. What I stated is fact. No one has yet met the challenge to point out where Church leaders are teaching people to hate or shun gays. And I don't recall upbraiding anyone as you say. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else. Edited January 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
Avatar4321 Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 14 hours ago, Teancum said: Gee did I say that? However if you equate automatic apostate status as love, kindness and compassion then you are simply foolish. For the CFR I refer you to the recent LDS church policy regarding gay marriage and children of such relationships as well as President Nelson's declaration of said policy as revelation. no teen has been given automatic apostate status. even if anyone is given automatic apostate status, it's just that: A status. There is no emotional value to it. That's like arguing if you say something is cold you love or hate someone. Love and hate are irrelevant to status. we warn people they are in apostasy when they are in apostasy. We do this to encourage them to leave that state of apostasy. How would you prefer we warn members they need to repent? Or would you prefer we hated them instead and didn't warn them when they were in danger? 3
Teancum Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That's neither an accurate nor a just characterization. Sure it is.
Teancum Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You're not getting the point. The Church does not teach anyone "to hate or shun gay persons" -- "outright" or otherwise. I have already said the Church does not teach people to shun or hate gays outright. But its most recent policy certainly sends a different message.
Teancum Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: no teen has been given automatic apostate status. even if anyone is given automatic apostate status, it's just that: A status. There is no emotional value to it. That's like arguing if you say something is cold you love or hate someone. Love and hate are irrelevant to status. we warn people they are in apostasy when they are in apostasy. We do this to encourage them to leave that state of apostasy. How would you prefer we warn members they need to repent? Or would you prefer we hated them instead and didn't warn them when they were in danger? When the church gives automatic apostate status to heterosexuals living together but not married and puts the same limits on children of such relationships as the do those for children of homosexual relationships then your comments above as well as so many other down the line defenders here may have some substance. 1
Traela Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 4 minutes ago, Teancum said: When the church gives automatic apostate status to heterosexuals living together but not married and puts the same limits on children of such relationships as the do those for children of homosexual relationships then your comments above as well as so many other down the line defenders here may have some substance. Apples and oranges. As far as we know, there is no way a homosexual relationship can ever lead to exaltation. There is no way a family lead by homosexuals can ever be sealed, or for the parents to conform to LDS standards of chastity without breaking up the family. Beyond that, living together is often expected to be a temporary arrangement that sometimes happens almost on a whim, while gay Mormons who choose to get married have to take deliberate steps that they know will result in a permanent non-condoned relationship. As others have stated, homosexual marriages are far more comparable to polygamous ones, and they are treated the same way. 3
Teancum Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 8 minutes ago, Traela said: Apples and oranges. As far as we know, there is no way a homosexual relationship can ever lead to exaltation. There is no way a family lead by homosexuals can ever be sealed, or for the parents to conform to LDS standards of chastity without breaking up the family. Beyond that, living together is often expected to be a temporary arrangement that sometimes happens almost on a whim, while gay Mormons who choose to get married have to take deliberate steps that they know will result in a permanent non-condoned relationship. As others have stated, homosexual marriages are far more comparable to polygamous ones, and they are treated the same way. Sin is sin is it not? And as for polygamy all I can say is how simple ironic......
smac97 Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: Sin is sin is it not? And as for polygamy all I can say is how simple ironic...... Could you explain the irony? I'm not seeing it. I am not trying to be obtuse or anything. Honest. I would just like to hear what you have to say.
6EQUJ5 Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm not going to get into a contest with you over who can be the snarkiest. The topic here is too serious for that. Take your cheap shots elsewhere. I always appreciate Scott's willingness to stand up to bullies on this board. 1
Teancum Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: Could you explain the irony? I'm not seeing it. I am not trying to be obtuse or anything. Honest. I would just like to hear what you have to say. The LDS Church is THE MOST anti mortal polygamy organization out there. It categorizes polygamists and not gays as automatically apostate. It limits the children of such relationships access to LDS membership and ordinances until they are 18 then requires specific repudiation of their parents lifestyle. Yet D&C 132 is part of the canon. And LDS men can me sealed to more than one woman if a spouse has died or they are divorced. Not so for LDS women. So plural marriage in the eternities is still alive and well in LDS doctrine. And then there are all the teachings of 19th century LDS prophets and apostles on how essential plural marriage is, how the church would be in apostasy if it abandoned it, how at least in your heart you needed to believe it to be exalted and well there you have it. This is the irony. Did you really not know this?
Avatar4321 Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 5 hours ago, consiglieri said: This is not a laughing situation. Playing dumb is not appropriate. I completely agree. Which I why I'm not laughing. And which is why your attempt to bear false witness in such a situation is so vile and wrong. so please Cfr. What policy encourages teen suicide? 1
smac97 Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 11 minutes ago, Teancum said: The LDS Church is THE MOST anti mortal polygamy organization out there. I'm not sure what you mean here. Is there a typo here? What does "anti mortal" mean? Quote It categorizes polygamists and not gays as automatically apostate. It limits the children of such relationships access to LDS membership and ordinances until they are 18 then requires specific repudiation of their parents lifestyle. Yet D&C 132 is part of the canon. And LDS men can me sealed to more than one woman if a spouse has died or they are divorced. Not so for LDS women. So plural marriage in the eternities is still alive and well in LDS doctrine. And then there are all the teachings of 19th century LDS prophets and apostles on how essential plural marriage is, how the church would be in apostasy if it abandoned it, how at least in your heart you needed to believe it to be exalted and well there you have it. This is the irony. Did you really not know this? I know all of these things, but I'm not seeing "irony." The LDS Church's position on The Law of Chastity is fairly straightforward: sex is authorized between a husband and wife, and it otherwise not authorized. So adultery, fornication, homosexual conduct, and so on are all prohibited. The LDS Church's position on marriage is also fairly straightforward: God has authorized monogamy (one man married to one woman), and will at some times authorize polygamy (one man simultaneously married to more than one woman). At present polygamy is not authorized. Traela raised a fair point. He said: Quote As far as we know, there is no way a homosexual relationship can ever lead to exaltation. There is no way a family lead by homosexuals can ever be sealed, or for the parents to conform to LDS standards of chastity without breaking up the family. Beyond that, living together is often expected to be a temporary arrangement that sometimes happens almost on a whim, while gay Mormons who choose to get married have to take deliberate steps that they know will result in a permanent non-condoned relationship. As others have stated, homosexual marriages are far more comparable to polygamous ones, and they are treated the same way. In LDS belief, polygamous marriages can, when authorized by God, endure into the eternities. Homosexual relationships, however, will not. So again, what's the "irony" here? Thanks, -Smac
Teancum Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 Smac Yes there was a typo. The rest..... well its really not worth my time at this point. Best wishes.
Avatar4321 Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 4 hours ago, ALarson said: You do not know that Wendy Montgomery lied. She is an active member of the church and those who know her have posted that she has integrity and would never lie about this. As Calm and others have pointed out, maybe she was lied to by some or there are many other variables that would cause the numbers to not match up. It's not right to call her a liar. she knew the stats were not verified. It wouldn't take much effort to verify them. And yet she didn't. I understand the desire to give her the benefit of the doubt, but what reason is there not to verify your numbers unless you know its not going to benefit you? I've had clients convicted on less 1
Popular Post smac97 Posted January 30, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: I completely agree. Which I why I'm not laughing. And which is why your attempt to bear false witness in such a situation is so vile and wrong. so please Cfr. What policy encourages teen suicide? He will, of course, say the Church's recent policy changes (defining participation in a same-sex marriage as a form of apostasy, and requiring children being raised in a same-sex family to wait until they are 18 to be baptized) encourage teen suicide. But my thought is that the policy is not creating near as much angst as the rhetoric about the policy from critics and enemies of the Church. These folks are like bullies in a schoolyard, gathering around some hapless kid and screaming at him "Everyone hates you! Your parents hate you! Your friends hate you! Your religious leaders hate you!" A kid subjected to such nonstop vitriol could certainly be adversely affected by it. But if that happens, then it would be absurd to accuse the kid's parents and friends and religious leaders of causing the angst. I think the Latter-day Saints can and should do better in treating gay teens with love and compassion and inclusion. But in terms of claims that the Church's recent policy change has somehow encouraged or caused teen suicides, I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical because A) the allegations are, to date, facially dubious and almost certainly wildly exaggerated, and B) to the extent teens have been distressed, I think the distress arises more from the rhetoric about the policy from critics and enemies of the Church than from the policy itself. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 31, 2016 by smac97 6
Avatar4321 Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 4 hours ago, Jeanne said: It can be done..and more often than not..for life insurance policies for remaining family. do many teens have life insurance policies? 1
Jeanne Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: do many teens have life insurance policies? I was talking about suicides in general..that it is possible as in my own family..I do believe though that there is some monies/funds when a child has already lost a parent. Edited January 30, 2016 by Jeanne
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 If these numbers are just youth suicides, I'm wondering what the overall number of suicides would be for gay Mormons of any age. This article and claim seems to only mention aged 14-20 people.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said: I always appreciate Scott's willingness to stand up to bullies on this board. Thank you. There have been occasions in my life when I wish I had been more apt to do that. I almost did yesterday on the train going home. A man was loudly saying hateful things about the Muslim faith in the presence of a young Middle Eastern woman seated across the aisle from him. By the time I could get up and go sit next to him and start a conversation on a different subject (my plan), others got on the train, and he shut up. He must have seen me eyeing him, because when the train reached the end of the free-fare zone and he was getting off, he looked at me and began spewing the same hatred as before, probably thinking he would soon be off the train and safe from any confrontation. Edited January 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Recommended Posts