Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[Tacenda]

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.  

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

The missionary stated he had hit his companion and gotten the dismissive 'is that all' before he gave any details on why he resorted to hitting him.  There is, from what I have heard confrontation that can lead to annoyance that can lead to hitting...something that can vary from light teasing to deadly violence.  Perhaps because he knew if the missionary had injured his companion, he would have heard of it already, he knew it was low on the level of violence.  

If I guy tried to kiss me or hold my hand when i didn't want him to, are you suggesting I have no right to resist in a physical manner if I feel threatened by such and am concerned that if I do not make my distaste vigourously known, he may move to assualt or molestation?

I have unfortunately heard of incidents of what would be called sexual molestation if a man did it to a woman without consent.  I think the same label should apply even if both are male.  And if there is any indication the individual is intending to continue after verbally rejecting or pushing them away, stronger physical measures are acceptable...whether a knee or a slap from a woman or a significant punch that throws the guy off balance from a man.

Have you ever been in a position where you feel threatened by another physically?

I tried to edit and add that but my edit function wouldn't work, it's in a separate post.  I'm just saying if there is a gay young man on a mission and he makes a mistake without any force, maybe handle it a different way.  But definitely believe you must use self defense if one is being attacked.

[Calm]

It is more likely a young man will be attacked by his companion because the man has anger issues than the twisted sexual/power issues that leads to molestation or rape, but physical violence even of a sexual nature has and can happen, including missionaries raping young girls or molesting children. I think it would be dangerously unrealistic to tell our young men and women such are unlikely to occur as it could cause them to ignore the danger signs that can help them prevent problems.  They are probably safer on a mission than off, but it is still happens.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Have you ever been in a position where you feel threatened by another physically?

I have. I once repeatedly told a woman -- who, ironically, was riding to district conference with me in the backseat of a taxi -- that I wished for her to stop touching me. She touched me again, and we spent the rest of the ride with her pinned against the door of the taxi by my feet, my back against the opposite door. I'd respond the same way again if necessary.

[Meadowchik]

The Mama Dragon Wendy Williams Montgomery, and source of the suicide numbers for the blog in the OP, has clarified her reporting:
 

Quote

 

There are many asking the same questions of me. I will try and address the most frequently asked questions here. I cannot possibly respond to the hundreds of tags, links, comments and posts. I hope this post will suffice and then you will all let me move on. This week has been brutal. Few will know how heavy the weight is of being the watchman of these accumulating stories. My heart has been so heavy with grief for months now. Then to have my honesty and character questioned hundreds of times. Yeah, it kinda sucks.

I never wanted to be the one with these numbers. I never solicited these stories. I wasn’t prepared for the number to be out there publicly, but I don’t fault or blame John for talking about it. 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. Sometimes I only had the name of the loved one who reached out to me. I only had their word that what they were saying was true. I only told them in what time frame the emails, FB messages and phone calls came. I was not acting as a record keeper or statistician. These family members were reaching out to me in their pain and I was trying to help in whatever way I could, despite not having any training in grief counseling or even knowing what to say to help them. I feel like both news articles made it clear that my numbers were unverified. I never claimed they were. I just relayed to them what had come to me.

This information was never solicited. There were no surveys or research. I didn’t collect this information as a tool to attack the LDS Church. If I was attacking the church, I highly doubt the Deseret News would have sourced me in the article. I am an active, attending, temple-recommend holding member. I love my church. But I also feel it’s important to talk about the ways the church has been hurting so many people that I love. Calling the church to a higher way of being and loving is not attacking it.

This information is self-reported by grieving family members. Verifying this information is complicated by multiple factors:
1) Most reports were from family but often not the parents. Siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles have reached out to me.
2) Many times the parents were not aware of (or in denial of) the sexual orientation of their children. And it is a common Mormon belief that people aren't gay in heaven so their child is no longer gay.
3) Because of shame, other families will hide that their child was LGBT. They also hide the fact that it was suicide since it is often taught in Mormon churches that suicide is akin to murder. No family wants that to be the lasting legacy of their lost loved one.
4) These are self-reported by people reaching out in grief for support, so we are not hiring investigators to verify.
5) There are many circumstances such as accidents or drug overdoses (of legal or illegal drugs) that are not reported as suicides.
6) Because a loved one messaged me during November, December and January doesn’t mean that is when their loved one died. It could have been much earlier. I didn’t ask for death dates. I actually didn’t ask them anything, other than what I could do to help them.

So unless these parents and family members want to come forward, this information is not going to be shared to the public. It would be highly inappropriate for me to share information unofficially collected from grieving family members seeking support. Not to mention, I promised them I would not share their names or any identifying details with anyone. And I haven’t.

This is my last attempt at answering questions.

 

She made the statement on a public Facebook page and gave permission to others to share her statement.  Link:

 

[Avatar4321]

It seems to me that if you don't want your honesty questioned you should be careful throwing numbers around to argue for a position. Especially numbers that are easily verifiable.

And if she knew these numbers could be from deaths prior to November she sh wouldn't have provided them at all as evidence of suicide spikes since november.

One thing I've noticed about her clarification. No apology. No attempt to take responsibility rather just an attempt to blame others over it. I'd be much more impressed if she just admitted her mistake and moved on. I'm much less inclined to believe it was unintentional when she has no remorse and is blaming others for it.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Avatar4321

[Meadowchik]

21 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

It seems to me that if you don't want your honesty questioned you should be careful throwing numbers around to argue for a position. Especially numbers that are easily verifiable.

And if she knew these numbers could be from deaths prior to November she sh wouldn't have provided them at all as evidence of suicide spikes since november.

One thing I've noticed about her clarification. No apology. No attempt to take responsibility rather just an attempt to blame others over it. I'd be much more impressed if she just admitted her mistake and moved on. I'm much less inclined to believe it was unintentional when she has no remorse and is blaming others for it.

To be clear, Montgomery did not write the blog post.  Also, these (growing) numbers have been floating around for months, and they've been growing even from before the policy change came out.  I have friends who were privy to them and talked about them when they were in the single digits from before the policy.  I believe it was Sherri Parks (who wrote an op-ed piece for the SL Trib on leaving the Church) who was keeping a count originally.  She spoke about them back when she was still a part of Mormons Building Bridges.  Word of that went around and the count continued when the policy was announced.  The intent of the authors was, I believe, to establish a count for suicides occurring after November 5th's leak.  The DN and Trib articles were careful to call the numbers unverified.  However, Downing, the blogger in the OP, wasn't so careful in her wording, apparently.  She's not a journalist, but anyone who is repeating such information should be clear about the verifiability of the source.  A journalist and most educated people should know the difference between hearsay and officially reported numbers.

Anyway, it is good to get a better understanding of the nature of Montgomery's information.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Meadowchik

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It is more likely a young man will be attacked by his companion because the man has anger issues than the twisted sexual/power issues that leads to molestation or rape, but physical violence even of a sexual nature has and can happen, including missionaries raping young girls or molesting children. I think it would be dangerously unrealistic to tell our young men and women such are unlikely to occur as it could cause them to ignore the danger signs that can help them prevent problems.  They are probably safer on a mission than off, but it is still happens.

My son was attacked, all over a cell phone, so yes it happens.  His companion had anger issues.  My son had to run away and spent some time at a local store.  

Edited February 2, 2016 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What is your best guess for how Pres. Monson should/will rein in a renegade president of the 12 who is willing to spread this kind of untruth about him?

I don't think that Pres. Monson is in the condition to do such a thing.  More importantly, I think that what Pres. Nelson recounted is exactly what he believes happened. 

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A very good question, and deserving of a response.

Are we seeing the re-emergence here of another Dr. Scratch style conspiracy theory about "factions" among the Quorum of the Twelve? I thought Michael Otterson sufficiently debunked such nonsense at the last FairMormon Conference.

So the pattern seems clear: If one of the Brethren says or does something you don't like, just claim with no substantiation whatsoever that not all of the rest agree with him because, you see, there are nasty "factions" among the Twelve.

I've never suggested a conspiracy theory or factions.

Are you suggesting that these 15 men agree on everything all the time?

The issue with this "revelation" is the manner in which is was handled and the fact that the first four prophets, seers, and revelators to publicly speak/write regarding the policy did not refer to it as revelation. 

 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The correct title of this talk is "To Young Men Only."

It was given at priesthood session of general conference. A student at BYU, I was present in the Salt Lake Tabernacle when the talk was delivered, and I remember it very well. As I recall, it was in the first October after I returned from my mission, so that would have been 1976.  It was not published in the Ensign magazine general conference edition, due to its sensitive nature, but was published in pamphlet form to be distributed judiciously by leaders in stakes and wards "to young men only."

I still have a copy of the pamphlet, and I have read it many times. It has been unjustly characterized of late by critics on the Internet in references such as the above.

The clear impression I got when I first heard the talk and that I have continued to get each time I have read it is that Elder Packer was referring to an incident in which a missionary defended himself against attempted sexual assault.

Leading in to the incident he recounted, Elder Packer said:

 

"Vigorously resist" -- with bodily force, if that's the only course of action available to you. That was the message Elder Packer intended to convey on that occasion and to illustrate with the incident he recounted.

He followed up with:

I say: Good for the young man who so defended himself, and good for Elder Packer for refusing to rule out such a thing as a possible course of action. It's the same advice I would give to my son or daughter against the time when either might be confronted with such a peril.

 

Edited to add:

The talk is still accessible on the Church website. So, despite all the derision that has been heaped on this talk -- and on the late President Packer for having given it -- it is clear the Church has not disavowed it.

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. 

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

12 hours ago, california boy said:

 

I am a little disappointed that you think I do not seek the Spirit.  Not sure how you got that impression other than perhaps that is the only way you can square in your mind, the peace I feel with God.  The odd thing for me is that I felt guilty and immoral having sex with my wife.  It just seemed wrong.  At first, I believed in the promise given to me by church leaders that those feelings would change, and somehow my nature would be "in line" with what God wanted.  But it never happened.  This feeling of doing something immoral was one of the major reasons why I knew that my marriage would not turn out the way I had so counted on and was promised.  

 

Cal, I think there is a misunderstanding.  To quote myself, "Seek the Spirit and follow Him - that is what we all must do and learn to do better every day".  My intent when I wrote that was certainly not to point a finger at any single person.  It is directed to all of us, we all must seek the Spirit and follow him. 

I don't think our nature changes; we are who we are.  We may learn not to express parts of our nature, but that does not change it. 

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has long been the policy of the Church not to baptize children without the express permission of their parents. Are you as indignant about children under such circumstances being "denied" baptism becuase the Church won't defy the wishes of the parents? If not, why not?

 

That's not even a good comparison, and I know you're smart enough to know that.  But, I'll explain why it's different if you'd like me to.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree that they are "certainly part of the message."  The graphic speaks about the tone of the piece.  The perspective of the author.  The objective of the piece.

Consider, for example, these images which are intended to vilify another religious minority:

These are, of course, vile anti-semitic characterizations of Jews associated with "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the "Blood Libel."

Mr. Waterman's graphic fits, in both form and intent, into the same category as the above images.  Here it is again:

 

 

Jeanne, perhaps you could reconsider your praise of the source of this graphic.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's certainly rude and childish, but comparing it to antisemitism is a big stretch. Especially since it came from a believing Mormon. It's an attack on one person, not an attack on Mormons as a people. 

Look up any polarizing figure in politics with the word devil, you will find a bad photoshop of that person with horns. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/2/2016 at 1:46 AM, Tacenda said:

 

I didn't mean to quote you. The software function would not allow me to remove your name. It was late at night, and I was too tired to fight with it any longer. Sorry. The quote, of course, is from Daniel. 

And while it would be rare for a missionary to attempt to sexually assault his companion, that doesn't mean it didn't happen in this case. I believe Elder Packer. 

Finally, if it is "old school" to use physical force when necessary to fend off a sexual predator, that's one old fashioned practice I hope remains in perpetuity. As I said, I'll teach my sons and daughter not to rule it out as a defense option. "You must protect yourself," as Elder Packer said. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The Mama Dragon Wendy Williams Montgomery, and source of the suicide numbers for the blog in the OP, has clarified her reporting:
 

She made the statement on a public Facebook page and gave permission to others to share her statement.  

Quote

 

...................

5) There are many circumstances such as accidents or drug overdoses (of legal or illegal drugs) that are not reported as suicides.
6) Because a loved one messaged me during November, December and January doesn’t mean that is when their loved one died. It could have been much earlier. I didn’t ask for death dates. I actually didn’t ask them anything, other than what I could do to help them.

 

 

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 & 6) are reason enough why the numbers reported may have been different from the records.  It's a great post from her.

Edited February 2, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And while it is rare for a missionary to attempt to sexually assault his companion that doesn't mean it didn't happen in this case. I believe Elder Packer. 

Elder Packer didn't say that it was an attempted sexual assault.  He didn't say what happened at all.  All we know is that a missionary hit and "floored" his companion and that Elder Packer approved.

If you want to stand by that as a good apostolic teaching... go for it.  I won't.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not even a good comparison, and I know you're smart enough to know that.  But, I'll explain why it's different if you'd like me to.

What I want is for you to answer the question. Otherwise, I'll be obliged to conclude you're not so much concerned about the rights of children in the respective scenarios as you are about the adults.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I want is for you to answer the question. Otherwise, I'll be obliged to conclude you're not so much concerned about the rights of children in the respective scenarios as you are about the adults.

There are parental rights to make certain decisions for their children (whether I agree with them or not).  This is a blanket policy for all children of those living in a home where a parent is in a SSM (it doesn't matter if the parents approve of the baptism).   So no, I do not feel they are at all the same.

Edited February 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The missionary stated he had hit his companion and gotten the dismissive 'is that all' before he gave any details on why he resorted to hitting him.  There is, from what I have heard confrontation that can lead to annoyance that can lead to hitting...something that can vary from light teasing to deadly violence.  Perhaps because he knew if the missionary had injured his companion, he would have heard of it already, he knew it was low on the level of violence.  

The sense I get is that the missionary indicated he had something to confess but was finding it very difficult to say what it was. Elder Packer was worried that the missionary was on the verge of confessing sexual sin, an offense that would have had the consequence of his being sent home and perhaps excommunicated. When the young man finally blurted out what the problem was, Elder Packer was relieved to learn it wasn't sexual sin; hence the rejoinder, "Is that all?"

Violence on the part of one missionary toward another could be a serious matter, but evidently, upon learning the details, Elder Packer judged that the behavior was warranted in this instance.
 

Quote

 

If I guy tried to kiss me or hold my hand when i didn't want him to, are you suggesting I have no right to resist in a physical manner if I feel threatened by such and am concerned that if I do not make my distaste vigourously known, he may move to assualt or molestation?

I have unfortunately heard of incidents of what would be called sexual molestation if a man did it to a woman without consent.  I think the same label should apply even if both are male.  And if there is any indication the individual is intending to continue after verbally rejecting or pushing them away, stronger physical measures are acceptable...whether a knee or a slap from a woman or a significant punch that throws the guy off balance from a man.

Have you ever been in a position where you feel threatened by another physically?

 

Yes, I agree.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

In a separate thread, Meadowchick posted the following:

Once again, Kudos to The Deseret News, for featuring an open-ed piece by the President of Affirmation (which I didn't know until I got to the end--I'm not affiliated with Affirmation, myself...).

More of THIS kind of supportive dialogue from both sides of the aisle, please!

I agree. I believe we are children of God with gender, sexuality, deep yearnings for relationships, connections and intimacy, and a slate of other divine characteristics and attributes where, for the sake of this discussion, romantic and sexual attraction and sexual behavior have a divine place.

That is why the use of the phrase “The answer…” got my attention, as if there is only one answer. “The answer is that being [homosexual] is not just about behavior; it is about deep yearnings for relationship, connection and intimacy. To this man, the new policy felt like an attack on his sense of who he was at his very core." Yes, sexuality is about feelings and attraction as well as behavior, but I do not believe that is who or what we are at our very core.

To say that sexuality (either homo- or hetero-) is not merely about sex ignored what it is and emphasizes the notion that we are sexual beings with gender, deep yearnings for relationship, connection and intimacy and the slate of other divine characteristics and attributes.

I think people who have a core self-definition as children of God are better prepared to face emotional triggers on this subject than those who tend to view and define themselves as sexual beings, or by their sexuality. I think all of our divine attributes are better integrated at our core when we understand the true doctrine of being children of God. In this way we are better prepared to manage destructive feelings, attitudes and behaviors that might get triggered.

I certainly empathize with the man’s pain and he certainly should be loved and understood. Part of doing that entails nurturing and nourishing him by the good word of God so that his pain can be alleviated by understanding who he truly is and that he accesses the blessings of the Atonement other than through an over-emphasized sense of his sexual identity as his identity.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There are parental rights to make certain decisions for their children (whether I agree with them or not).  This is a blanket policy for all children of those living in a home where a parent is in a SSM (it doesn't matter if the parents approve of the baptism).   So no, I do not feel they are at all the same.

So it's the threat to "parental rights" that has you exercised, not so much that children are required to delay baptism.

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure why this would be news.  Of course "actively gay" people are welcome to Church.  They may not be able to fully participate in things like holding a calling or having a temple recommend (for the same reasons as bar people who have violated other aspects of The Law of Chastity or committed other serious transgressions and are not penitent about it), but they are welcome to attend.  Anyone who is willing to behave with decorum is welcome to our services.  Persistent disruptive or threatening/dangerous conduct are pretty much the only bars to entry.  And those have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Thanks,

-Smac

I  responded to this quote by Storm Rider....

"I am just slightly unwilling to believe something of this nature because a stranger not only knows one, but two married, gay couples who are active in the church even though they are excommunicated.  Yeah, this sounds like a fantasy story telling to support an agenda, but I would like to be proven wrong."

I actually think this policy has opened the gates for gay couples to attend church now and be in support or minister to those that are hurt by it.  At least that was the gist of what I heard from the podcast with Tom Christofferson.  Whom, btw, attends his ward with his partner John (sp?).  So if Storm wants to see it for his own eyes, he can attend their ward.  

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Elder Packer didn't say that it was an attempted sexual assault.  He didn't say what happened at all.  All we know is that a missionary hit and "floored" his companion and that Elder Packer approved.

If you want to stand by that as a good apostolic teaching... go for it.  I won't.

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I've never suggested a conspiracy theory or factions.

Are you suggesting that these 15 men agree on everything all the time?

 

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.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd