Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Just because you internalized and reacted a certain way from being present to hear this talk, does not mean that all there had the same experience.  I would imagine that there were those in attendance who felt differently and actually were in more pain after hearing this talk.   

Edited February 2, 2016 by ALarson

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

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

Yeah sorry about the misspelling

You are wrong about the widespread public misconstrued or mischaracterization of his meaning.  He was almost universal condemned for his words immediately and never made any attempt to clarify what he met.  He should be condemned for that.  The pamphlet should have clarified what he met if indeed he was only talking about a physical assault.  But he didn't.  And like I said, now there are those that can conclude that the church condones violence against gays.  Can you explain why Elder Packer never clarified his remarks, even in the pamphlet?

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

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

-Smac

Her "clarification" sounds an awful like the "clarification" the church issued after their initial policy statement.    This all sounds too familiar.  Just the opposite side of the fence.  I assume your same rath is directed at church leaders.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Why would I?  Anyone who feels threatened with sexual advances should be able to protect him/herself. 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

FAIR has a pretty good article on this issue.

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

-Smac

 

I'm not sure how to put this more clearly.  in the talk from Elder Packer we do not know the cause of the punch from the missionary who confessed.  If it was in defense, I'm all for it.  If it was because he felt weird his companion was gay and that's all, I'd be against it.  But sadly, as I said, we don't know the cause.  Elder Packer doesn't spell out the cause.  If he did spell it out and it was in defense or something, we'd have no reason to talk about this.  No reason to feel concerned. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

5) There are many circumstances such as accidents or drug overdoses (of legal or illegal drugs) that are not reported as suicides

(This is a quote from Wendy. I can't get the software to remove Meadowchik's name.)

Thing is, the numbers given from the state agency broke down the cuase of death into suicides, accidents, undetermined, etc. Even assuming all the deaths reported as accidents were in reality suicides (which is extremely unlikely), the number doesn't even approach the number she gave initially as the number of suicides having occurred in Utah. She should have left this point out, as it comes accross as trying to double down on what are now obviously bad numbers.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

(This is a quote from Wendy. I can't get the software to remove Meadowchik's name.)

Thing is, the numbers given from the state agency broke down the cuase of death into suicides, accidents, undetermined, etc. Even assuming all the deaths reported as accidents were in reality suicides (which is extremely unlikely), the number doesn't even approach the number she gave initially as the number of suicides having occurred in Utah. She should have left this point out, as it comes accross as trying to double down on what are now obviously bad numbers.

She also stated this:

" 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. "

 

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yeah sorry about the misspelling

You are wrong about the widespread public misconstrued or mischaracterization of his meaning.  He was almost universal condemned for his words immediately and never made any attempt to clarify what he met.  He should be condemned for that.  

CFR that "he was almost univers[ally] condemned for his words immediately." I don't recall any condemnation at the time, and certainly no "almost universal" condemnation.

Remember, the talk was delivered and first published way back in 1976. Can you document "almost universal" condemnation occurring back then? You did say "immediately."

 

Quote

The pamphlet should have clarified what he met if indeed he was only talking about a physical assault.  But he didn't.  And like I said, now there are those that can conclude that the church condones violence against gays.  

Quote

 

In hindsight, I wish there had been greater clarity. But I don't believe the misinterpretation was all that widespread in the beginning. The talk was directed toward a friendly, in-house audience, one that could be expected not to receive the message with such cynicism, one who believes, as I do, that it would not make sense or be in character for an apostle to be advocating gratuitous violence. (Only priesthood holders were given access to the priesthood session back then, and, as I have noted, the talk was not published in the Ensign, but rather, in pamphlet form with controlled distribution.)

Quote

Can you explain why Elder Packer never clarified his remarks, even in the pamphlet?

 

I don't know, except to suggest it might be because the attacks did not really surface until many years after the talk was delivered and the pamphlet was out of print (although, as I noted, it is today accessible on lds.org). That, and the fact that the attacks were largely coming from those who were hostile toward the Church and toward President Packer. There's something to be said, you know, for refusing to engage in a back-and-forth with those who have ill intent. There's the oft-quoted saying about refusing to wallow in the mud with a pig; you both get dirty, and only the pig enjoys it.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

She also stated this:

" 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. "

 

I realize that. I was only addressing point number 5. I'm saying she should have left that one out, because it sounds like she is doubling down on bad numbers.

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I realize that. I was only addressing point number 5. I'm saying she should have left that one out, because it sounds like she is doubling down on bad numbers.

I disagree.  Why leave out the fact that some suicides are not reported or recorded as suicides?  That is very relevant here.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

She also stated this:

" 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. "

This is a bit odd, because according to Affirmation, Wendy Montgomery told them that "there have been at least 32 documented LGBT Mormon suicides since the release of the new policy."

So are we supposed to believe her then (where she specifically attributed 32 "documented" suicides to a post-policy timeframe) or now (where she is suggesting that some of these "documented" suicides "could have been much earlier [than the announcement about the policy change]")?

I now look forward to an attempt by CaliforniaBoy to deflect attention away from such uncomfortable questions by attacking the leaders of the LDS Church (as he did just a few minutes ago).  It's both mildly amusing and pathetic (but mostly pathetic) to see CB reduced to "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"-style absurdities in an effort to shore up the increasingly dubious narrative being peddled by his compatriots.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming (that is, CB attacking the LDS Church)...

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 2, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Why would I?  Anyone who feels threatened with sexual advances should be able to protect him/herself. 

I'm not sure how to put this more clearly.  in the talk from Elder Packer we do not know the cause of the punch from the missionary who confessed.  If it was in defense, I'm all for it.  If it was because he felt weird his companion was gay and that's all, I'd be against it.  But sadly, as I said, we don't know the cause.  Elder Packer doesn't spell out the cause.  If he did spell it out and it was in defense or something, we'd have no reason to talk about this.  No reason to feel concerned. 

How about, in the interest of good will, putting the most reasonable and charitable interpretation on it and then moving on?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I disagree.  Why leave out the fact that some suicides are not reported or recorded as suicides?  That is very relevant here.

Because, even granting that, it doesn't mitigate the fact that the numbers, as she originally published them, were way off.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

This is a bit odd, because according to Affirmation, Wendy Montgomery told them that "there have been at least 32 documented LGBT Mormon suicides since the release of the new policy."

"According to affirmation".  I'll take Wendy's direct quote over a secondary source.  Maybe go after Affirmation rather than Wendy for stating that?

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So are we supposed to believe her then (where she specifically attributed 32 "documented" suicides to a post-policy timeframe)....

Do have a quote by Wendy where she "specifically attributed 32 'documented suicides to a post-policy timeframe"?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about, in the interest of good will, putting the most reasonable and charitable interpretation on it and then moving on?

Nope.  No good.  Latter-day Saints, particularly LDS leaders, are not entitled to any sort of presumption of good faith, or a benefit of the doubt.  Any statement made by LDS leaders is presumptively suspect, and must therefore be interpreted in the most base, the most hostile way available.

We've all seen how such prejudices play out when deployed against other minority groups by people who reflexively despise those groups (and let's be honest, Latter-day Saints can be susceptible to such weaknesses as well).  But over time I hope such folks will come around and adopt a more reasoned, decent approach to interacting with people who have differing points of view.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about, in the interest of good will, putting the most reasonable and charitable interpretation on it and then moving on?

That'd be fine if it didnt' leave open the possibility of promoting unsolicited violence.  Sadly, I can't interpret it for everyone, Scott. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by stemelbow

[busybee]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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

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

-Smac

Exactly.

Funny how people jump to her defence when she clarifies statements she actually made (about unverified statistics) after the fact, but vilify the church leaders when they try to clarify their statements after those statements have been twisted to be something they never were by people who had no business releasing them.

[smac97]

On 2/2/2016 at 10:54 AM, ALarson said:

"According to affirmation".  I'll take Wendy's direct quote over a secondary source.  Maybe go after Affirmation rather than Wendy for stating that?

First, Wendy Montgomery is on Affirmation's Board of Directors.  Do you really think it likely that Affirmation misquoted someone one its own board?

Second, because she's on the Board of Directors, she is presumably in a position to ask Affirmation to annotate or otherwise qualify the statement it is attributing to her.  Has she done so?

Third, are you suggesting that Affirmation is not trustworthy (why else would you propose that we "go after Affirmation rather than Wendy")?

Fourth, Affirmation is running with Wendy's narrative.  Its president told the Tribune in an article published last week: 

Quote

"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."

If Affirmation is publicly misrepresenting Wendy Montgomery both on its own website and to the Salt Lake Tribune, why isn't she rebutting those misrepresentations and demanding a retraction from Affirmation?  She's on its Board of Directors, for pete's sake.

Fourth, I don't want to "go after" Wendy.  She is a fellow Latter-day Saint.  But I think she has made some very serious mistakes (or "lapses in judgment" in you prefer).  And she has done so publicly.  And I suspect she did so with a mixture of both good motives (calling attention to the needs of gay LDS teens) and less-than-good motives (fabricating a factual underpinning for a narrative designed to make the LDS Church look bad, to foment ill will against the LDS Church, to coerce/compel the LDS Church to capitulate to what she wants it to do).  And so far she appears to be rationalizing and prevaricating rather than what would, at this point, appear to be the more appropriate course of action (retracting and apologizing).  Doing so would not lessen the importance of the overall message she apparently wants to send (that we need to be concerned about the welfare of gay LDS teens, a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse).

Here's a pretty good article on this issue by a "Geoff B.":  About that claim of suicides by LDS teens with same-sex attraction.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by smac97

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I'm sorry, I don't see how that follows.

Even if Tacenda's run-on sentence were a bit easier to parse, I'm not sure how it supports the conclusion that President Monson was surprised.

And at what point did you think he was surprised?

Incidentally, you've made it into my sig. Aren't you pleased?

 

I just think the message at the fireside was kind of "off the cuff"... a revelation from an apostle to a group of young people should of worked.  I don't think Monson got a revelation..it was just part of a speech that slipped in.

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

From Wendy Montgomery:

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

Thus speaketh the one who recently accused me and virtually every other member of the Church of having culpability for these suicides.  

 

Quote

 

"Here’s the newsflash: every one of us has culpability for these deaths if we are not actively, openly doing all we can to reduce them. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Sleeper Cell

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I just think the message at the fireside was kind of "off the cuff"... a revelation from an apostle to a group of young people should of worked.  I don't think Monson got a revelation..it was just part of a speech that slipped in.

It was not "off the cuff." He was reading from a prepared text.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, busybee said:

Exactly.

Funny how people jump to her defence when she clarifies statements she actually made (about unverified statistics) after the fact, but vilify the church leaders when they try to clarify their statements after those statements have been twisted to be something they never were by people who had no business releasing them.

No, not exactly.  

Where are the statements "she actually made"?  Do you have direct quotes from her that these suicides all took place within the 3 month period mentioned?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That'd be fine if it didnt' leave open the possibility of promoting unsolicited violence.  Sadly, I can't interpret it for everyone, Scott. 

You personally can make the decision to decline to be part of spreading or consenting to what is quite likely a misinterpretation of meaning.

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do have a quote by Wendy where she "specifically attributed 32 'documented suicides to a post-policy timeframe"?

It's weird that the context of time frame slipped in.  Who first got that impression?

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, Wendy Montgomery is on Affirmation's Board of Directors.  Do you really think it likely that Affirmation misquoted someone one its own board?

According to her, they were not an accurate portrayal of what took place and of how the suicides were reported.  Have you read any statements from her that all of those suicides took place within the months mentioned?

I've asked that question several times and I'm going to assume you can't produce any since you haven't.

It sounds like she was not the one who wanted this to go public and once it did, she tried to clarify some misconceptions.  

Edited February 2, 2016 by ALarson