Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This essay doesn't blame the church.  Brothers ans Sisters ALL of us are responsible and some accountable for eachother.

 

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To bring awareness to a problem that seems to have gotten worse over the past couple months.  That's why I posted it here.

The article just by title alone is implying that the cause of these suicides is the new Church policy.  To say it's not is disingenuous.
I reject that implication.  Even if LDS LGBT youth suicides are on the increase the answer is to provide more help to these youths, not to blame Church policy.
I would be more willing to say we as a Church aren't doing enough to help than to accept the false claim that the Church is contributing to the cause.

I agree with what the article that helping these children is priority in all our lives.

[Mystery Meat]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If you care, than why does the article bother you?  How does she apply guilt and shame where it does not belong?

It bothers me because of her underlying agenda. It bothers me because she is laying the blame at the feet of the Church and at the feet of those who support it and the policies.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

To help me make the point, let me take one short snippet of her article:

Now imagine that Dan Peterson posted this article on ldsliving.com and the above was replaced with the following:

Hardly unbiased and without agenda, am I right? She actually hurts her argument and her agenda is exposed.

I guess I read that differently... I don't see an agenda, I see her saying that taking care of one another is more important than the dogma.  Basically, the same message as is contained in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, salgare said:

Thanks smac for all that information.  I have not followed these arguments closely.  A can see the points you are making.  Being just over a year from feeling my mind ready to break, pistol in hand and getting a feel for the help available in SLC, Utah at that time I'm too biased too see anything but those suffering.

I truly do hope the hearts of the members are softening.  Even one is too many.

Again with the Mormons-are-driving-gays-to-suicide thing.  I agree that "even one is too many."  And I am even willing to consider that unkind remarks from Latter-day Saints may be a factor in some suicides (along with unkind remarks from non-Latter-day Saints, and substance abuse, and neglect, and sexual/emotional/verbal/physical abuse, and mental health conditions, and so on).

But I'm also willing to consider that the blame-the-Mormons-for-driving-kids-to-suicide thing may be overwrought or just flat-out wrong.  If social opprobrium by Latter-day Saints against homosexuals is a significant factor in suicide situations, then how do you account for thinks like the Netherlands study I referenced?  Here's the money quote again (emphases added):

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.

Note that these disorders are not being caused by uptight Mormons, but by . . . "homosexual behavior."  So have you ever blamed that for gay suicides?  If not, why not?

And how do you account for the study showing that LDS kids "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?"  What do you have to say to critics and enemies of the Church whose non-stop rhetoric has likely encouraged some LDS kids to ditch the teachings of the Church, the teachings which, according to the a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology render LDS kids less likely to commit suicide?  Have you ever blamed them?  If not, why not?  Have you ever publicly declared a hope that their hearts "are softening?"  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And your response to the increase in LDS LGBT youth suicides since the policy?

I don't think one can automatically point to the policy as the cause or even the church culture the policy comes from.  Suicide has a very unfortunate dynamic where there appears to be a high coorelation, perhaps even causal connection between talking about suicide even in an attempt to prevent it as well as clustering...it appears that hearing of others committing suicides may lead to removal on inhibitions leading to more suicide.

So one can't rule out all the possibility that the increase was a result of the discussion after the policy was leaked that essentially conveyed the message that it was normal for LGBT individuals to respond to hearing about the policy with suicidal thoughts (not saying they were saying it was good, but telling people they should call suicide hotlines etc sets up an expectation that suicidal thoughts are an expected response) plus if just talking about suicide ups the rate (possibly because it starts people thinking about suicides), the extreme concern about suicide that was expressed in this discussion may have had the very unfortunate and of course unintended result of increasing suicides rather than decreasing...and possibly it is the most influential trigger.

I am not saying this as a fact, but given past studies on suicide triggers it is a possibility that should be included in the discussion.  It might be much healthier in the long run to approach the issue of mental and emotional health of youth in general, including LGBT, from the viewpoint of what one can do to maximize health as opposed to using threats and examples of suicides as a way to draw attention to and to build emotional support for one's concerns.

More studies need to be done on what actually helps prevent suicides (and not just what may help those who talk about suicide but may not be at risk for it).    Until thenI wish people were a lot more careful in how it is discussed.  Articles like these might just be hurting more than they are helping.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

It bothers me because of her underlying agenda. It bothers me because she is laying the blame at the feet of the Church and at the feet of those who support it and the policies.

How does she lay blame at the feet of the Church and those who support it and the policies?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think one can automatically point to the policy as the cause or even the church culture the policy comes from.  Suicide has a very unfortunate dynamic where there appears to be a high coorelation, perhaps even causal connection between talking about suicide even in an attempt to prevent it as well as clustering...it appears that hearing of others committing suicides may lead to removal on inhibitions leading to more suicide.

So one can't rule out all the possibility that the increase was a result of the discussion after the policy was leaked that essentially conveyed the message that it was normal for LGBT individuals to respond to hearing about the policy with suicidal thoughts (not saying they were saying it was good, but telling people they should call suicide hotlines etc sets up an expectation that suicidal thoughts are an expected response) plus if just talking about suicide ups the rate (possibly because it starts people thinking about suicides), the extreme concern about suicide that was expressed in this discussion may have had the very unfortunate and of course unintended result of increasing suicides rather than decreasing...and possibly it is the most influential trigger.

I am not saying this as a fact, but given past studies on suicide triggers it is a possibility that should be included in the discussion.  It might be much healthier in the long run to approach the issue of mental and emotional health of youth in general, including LGBT, from the viewpoint of what one can do to maximize health as opposed to using threats and examples of suicides as a way to draw attention to and to build emotional support for one's concerns.

More studies need to be done on what actually helps prevent suicides (and not just what may help those who talk about suicide but may not be at risk for it).    Until thenI wish people were a lot more careful in how it is discussed.  Articles like these might just be hurting more than they are helping.

I agree.  And I think that LT Downing's essay comes from a place of great pain and helplessness... that's the feeling I get from the Mama Dragons group these days.

[Mystery Meat]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess I read that differently... I don't see an agenda, I see her saying that taking care of one another is more important than the dogma.  Basically, the same message as is contained in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

I don't think you get the parable of the Good Samaritan. It has nothing to do with a principal being more or less important than dogma. In fact, I am having a hard time identifying the dogma that was on the line in the story.

The good Samaritan involved a man who was in need. A Good Samaritan provided the help he needed.

Gay children likely need help and support. We should all provide that support.

That does not mean we can or should sacrifice our support for true and righteous principals.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess I read that differently... I don't see an agenda, I see her saying that taking care of one another is more important than the dogma.  Basically, the same message as is contained in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

1. You aren't that naïve Rockpond.
2. The Good Samaritan is not as straightforward as you make it out to be if you read more than the nice story about kindness viewpoint.

Edited January 28, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Mystery Meat]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How does she lay blame at the feet of the Church and those who support it and the policies?

I think her agenda, as I have already previously describes and as other posters have demonstrated in other portions of her post (including its title) makes it clear she thinks the Church is too blame. 

Let me ask you this: do you think the Church's policy deserves some of the blame for these types of suicides?

[DJBrown]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

And your response to the increase in LDS LGBT youth suicides since the policy?

 

Has there been an increase?  How does this compare to 'heterosexual' teen suicide?  

[Mystery Meat]

6 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't think you get the parable of the Good Samaritan. It has nothing to do with a principal being more or less important than dogma. In fact, I am having a hard time identifying the dogma that was on the line in the story.

The good Samaritan involved a man who was in need. A Good Samaritan provided the help he needed.

Gay children likely need help and support. We should all provide that support.

That does not mean we can or should sacrifice our support for true and righteous principals.

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.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't think you get the parable of the Good Samaritan. It has nothing to do with a principal being more or less important than dogma. In fact, I am having a hard time identifying the dogma that was on the line in the story.

The good Samaritan involved a man who was in need. A Good Samaritan provided the help he needed.

Gay children likely need help and support. We should all provide that support.

That does not mean we can or should sacrifice our support for true and righteous principals.

I'm not saying that we should sacrifice our support for true and righteous principles.

In the parable, who were the first two passers-by?  How did Christ identify them?  Why did they not stop?  Why did they move to the other side of the road?  The why is critically important to the parable and how Christ is using it to answer the question about one's neighbor.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't think you get the parable of the Good Samaritan. It has nothing to do with a principal being more or less important than dogma. In fact, I am having a hard time identifying the dogma that was on the line in the story.

The good Samaritan involved a man who was in need. A Good Samaritan provided the help he needed..

The Good Samaritan was Christ.
The certain man was mankind.
Being left half dead represented the fall to mortality.
The Samaritan binding the wounds represents the atonement.
The inn/innkeeper are the Church/Christ's representatives.
The Samaritan's promised return references the Second Coming.

Plenty of deeper theology in the Good Samaritan.  It's the entire plan of salvation in a few verses.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

1. You aren't that naïve Rockpond.
2. The Good Samaritan is not as straightforward as you make it out to be if you read more than the nice story about kindness viewpoint.

1.  I'm very naive... it's one of my best character traits.

2.  Exactly... that's my point.  It isn't just a nice story about kindness.

[Mystery Meat]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The Good Samaritan was Christ.
The certain man was mankind.
Being left half dead represented the fall to mortality.
The Samaritan binding the wounds represents the atonement.
The inn/innkeeper are the Church/Christ's representatives.
The Samaritan's promised return references the Second Coming.

Plenty of deeper theology in the Good Samaritan.  It's the entire plan of salvation in a few verses.

Powerful stuff.

Thanks.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  And I think that LT Downing's essay comes from a place of great pain and helplessness... that's the feeling I get from the Mama Dragons group these days.

What is so extremely unfortunate is their response to their pain (because they love their children and want to protect them) might just be adding to the probability of more reason for sorrow.  It reminds me of children actually dying unnecessarily because of trials of polio vaccine were taken too soon to human trials.  My neighbour's first grade class participated in one and three years later only four kids in the class of 30 or so were still alive and he was the only one not in a wheelchair (but with severe complications since then).  Fear too often overwhelms wisdom and common sense.

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess I read that differently... I don't see an agenda, I see her saying that taking care of one another is more important than the dogma.  Basically, the same message as is contained in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

I think the Church accomplishes that far more effectively and without the guilt-mongering. From a quick Google:

 

https://www.lds.org/bible-videos/videos/parable-of-the-good-samaritan?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/sisterhood-oh-how-we-need-each-other?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/what-have-i-done-for-someone-today?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2006/06/a-solemn-responsibility-to-love-and-care-for-each-other?lang=eng

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I think her agenda, as I have already previously describes and as other posters have demonstrated in other portions of her post (including its title) makes it clear she thinks the Church is too blame. 

Let me ask you this: do you think the Church's policy deserves some of the blame for these types of suicides?

If Mama Dragons data is correct, it suggests that either the policy or the discussions surrounding the policy may be causing an increase in suicides.

My experience, having worked directly with a suicidal LDS gay youth, is that the lack of a good place within LDS theology & culture for LGBT persons can cause massive dissonance and depression for them.

[rockpond]

17 minutes 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.

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

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess I read that differently... I don't see an agenda, I see her saying that taking care of one another is more important than the dogma.  Basically, the same message as is contained in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

 

This article is plain offensive.

 

Her first paragraph is just retelling a number accepted blindly from someone else, Concluding sentence " we adults are not successfully supporting our LGBT youth" (why or how, she doesn't seem to know or care) 

Second paragraph says that our opinions do not matter (something she doesn't believe, else why would she be sharing hers?) it ends with "All that matters is we prevent any more kids from  choosing death as the solution" (how? she doesn't say)

Then she says "Stop it!" (what do we need to stop? demonstrating our faithfulness)  this is the offensive part, and I am shocked that you seem to advocate this, rockpond.  This lady belittles the faith. This lady belittles that we want our families with us forever, that we want share the gospel with our children. Her assertion that death is the final answer and it is always wrong is an affront to everything we teach, everything we believe in.  

Her next paragraph tries to make every one of us responsible for every death.  What are you doing, rockpond that is causing these people to commit suicide?  What am I Doing?  That is what she is accusing us of, anyway.

She tells us to stop preaching

She then says that our preaching causes their death.  Just offensive!

She then admits depression is a medical condition, but it is still my fault somehow.

She condemns anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is a sin with the words "Out damned Spot", compare us  to lady Macbeth.

 

At the bottom, in the comments section she says that we need to trust her friend but there is no source for the numbers

This seems odd, seeing as that there are only 34 data points that would be needed to analyze what she is saying.

 

So in the end, I get her message as stop believing, stop preaching, you are to blame for suicide, death is final and that we need to do something different.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The Good Samaritan was Christ.
The certain man was mankind.
Being left half dead represented the fall to mortality.
The Samaritan binding the wounds represents the atonement.
The inn/innkeeper are the Church/Christ's representatives.
The Samaritan's promised return references the Second Coming.

Plenty of deeper theology in the Good Samaritan.  It's the entire plan of salvation in a few verses.

You left out the Priest and the Levite.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

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

Since there were purification rites they could have gone through that would have removed any religious penalty, imo their decision was solely based on personal convenience and a desire to not get involved.

[salgare]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Note that these disorders are not being caused by uptight Mormons, but by . . . "homosexual behavior."  So have you ever blamed that for gay suicides?  If not, why not?

Those are shocking numbers, but I'm somewhat confused.  Do you believe the mama dragons are numbering suicides from our stakes as well as in the open gay communities?  Of course we can not answer that question.  Not having researched and jumping to a conclusion, I assumed the mama dragons were numbering only members of the Church who were publicly known to have gender issues.

If I'm hearing your argument correctly, you have a ... dare I call it agenda ... to protect society at large.  If your quoted numbers are correct, perhaps this is a good thing.  However I wonder if you are seeing the forest and overlooking the tree.  Where the tree is some very active in the Church young man/woman new into puberty and very confused about their sexuality.  This compounded by the weekly message of their tight culture conflicting with their feelings.

I personally do view people accusing the Church or members as being the cause of suicides.  It's the culture.  Many see this as the policy encouraging an entrenchment to this culture, which causes depression and suicides of our own, not some threatening gay community.

I suppose the Church has taken the stand you suggest and put a priority on trying to protect the outer society at the expense of the inner teens.

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by salgare

[HappyJackWagon]

58 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

The article just by title alone is implying that the cause of these suicides is the new Church policy.  To say it's not is disingenuous.
I reject that implication.  Even if LDS LGBT youth suicides are on the increase the answer is to provide more help to these youths, not to blame Church policy.
I would be more willing to say we as a Church aren't doing enough to help than to accept the false claim that the Church is contributing to the cause.

I agree with what the article that helping these children is priority in all our lives.

Perhaps a study could be done to show why, in a state that is already 5th in the nation for youth suicides, there was a massive influx in suicides after November 5th. Obviously there could be no link whatsoever to LGBT suicides and a policy labeling them as apostates and even placing restrictions on their posterity. I'm sure they just don't understand how loving the policy really is. We should send missionaries to teach them. Problem solved.