Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[Calm]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2016/01/double-binds-hurt-us.html

Quote

Wendy Montgomery is a personal friend of mine and I have spoken with her regarding these reports. She has had one-on-one contact with each family reported that has lost an LDS LGBT member to suicide.

 

And yet Wendy Montgomery didn't tell her that there were no death dates attached (or she herself contributed to the misinformation intentionally).

Quote

 

With permission to publish from Thomas Montgomery:

“Many people are alarmed by the number of suicide deaths of LGBT Mormon youth reported over the past 3 months. This also raises a very important question related to verifying this information. So, it is important to look at the genesis of this information.

This information was never solicited. There were no surveys or research. No one thought to collect this information as a tool to attack the LDS Church. As early as November, relatives of suicide victims began reaching out in grief to various Mama Dragons. At first it was one. Then it was two. And then it was five. And then it was a dozen. And then it was so many that the question was finally raised, “How many has it been?” So they just started gathering all the names together.

 

 

But apparently Thomas Montgomery didn't feel the need to state that the deaths could have occurred at any time and therefore had nothing to do with the policy.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

What a reasonable adult would conclude from his remarks is not the issue.  The talk is addressed to teenage boys.

Elder Packer was not speaking in Greek.  He was not using high-falootin' mumbo jumbo.  He said:

Quote

I repeat, very plainly, physical mischief with another man is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral [homosexual] acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.

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.

Also, I'm not even sure this article gets discussed anymore.  I've never seen it used in any church setting.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

If I hit return twice I can finally get below the quote and type.

One can also delete an unwanted quote if the board won't let one by refreshing the page, hitting reply (at which point the quote shows up again) and then clicking on the little box at the top left corner of the quote box with the four arrows and then hitting delete.

Make sure you do this before typing a response because you might not be able to copy it after you've typed it.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes... way to go Smac... create a strawman and then shoot it down.  Rep point!

Okay, I'll bite.  What "strawman" did I create?  CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay, I'll bite.  What "strawman" did I create?  CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

The one shouldn't counter "unwanted sexual advances"... even with physical violence.  I'm not aware of anyone here making that argument.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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

Wendy is on the Board of Directors for Affirmation.

Affirmation has at least twice published Wendy's claims (on their website and to the Salt Lake Tribune).

To date, Affirmation has not retracted or corrected its publications of Wendy's claims.

To date, AFAIK, Wendy Montgomery has not repudiated the statements attributed to her by Affirmation (again, she's on Affirmation's Board of Directors).

You can attack the credibility of Affirmation if you want to.  Me, I'm willing to conclude that they are accurately quoting Wendy Montgomery.  The evidence strongly supports such a conclusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Packer was not speaking in Greek.  He was not using high-falootin' mumbo jumbo.  He said:

Also, I'm not even sure this article gets discussed anymore.  I've never seen it used in any church setting.

Thanks,

-Smac

Correct... he wasn't speaking in Greek or using "high falootin mumbo jumbo".  Again, these are claims I haven't seen anyone make.  It's not what he said, it is what he didn't say.  The parts that he left up to interpretation... the interpretation of 12-18 year old boys.

The Church published pamphlet was still available in the clerk's office of my ward building when I was serving as YM pres... that would have been around 2004-2005. 

Our stake presidency used the talk as the subject of a Stake Priesthood Meeting a few years back.

But I agree it's usage is fairly minimal these days and I'm glad for that.

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which means it could have been years ago.  32 possible suicides spread out over ten years rather different than 32 in three months.  Such statistics should never have been used to claim there was a spike in suicide deaths by her.

Especially attributed to the recent policy change.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The one shouldn't counter "unwanted sexual advances"... even with physical violence.  I'm not aware of anyone here making that argument.

Ah.  So we're in agreement regarding the propriety of Elder Packer's remarks and counsel that physical resistance/violence can be a "last-resort"-type of response to unwanted sexual advances?

Then why are people criticizing Elder Packer?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So we're in agreement regarding the propriety of Elder Packer's remarks and counsel that physical resistance/violence can be a "last-resort"-type of response to unwanted sexual advances?

Then why are people criticizing Elder Packer?

Thanks,

-Smac

If he had stated that the companion was making sexual advances, didn't stop when asked, and so his companion had to hit and floor him - I wouldn't be criticizing.

As I've stated several times now, the criticisms I have seen come from his lack of disclosure at what prompted physical violence.

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm sorry Scott but you and your recollection of an address you listened to some 40 years ago is anecdotal, at best.  You can't possibly speak to the minds of the thousands who were listening nor can you speak to how the pamphlet was understood in the decades after that event.

You are the one throwing in words like "gratuitous" and "criminal behavior".  Don't put words in my mouth and fabricate a fake enemy, the "gay rights lobby" to try to make some kind of point.

My first-hand recollection of the occasion when the talk was delivered (including being physically present), and my awareness of it over the years is better than the unsubstantiated assumptions of those who are coming late to the party and, I daresay in many cases, were not even born yet when the talk was first delivered and published.

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes... way to go Smac... create a strawman and then shoot it down.  Rep point!

You're talking gibberish. Smac has not created a strawman here.

 

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

My first-hand recollection of the occasion when the talk was delivered (including being physically present), and my awareness of it over the years is better than the unsubstantiated assumptions of those who are coming late to the party and, I daresay in many cases, were not even born yet when the talk was first delivered and published.

Fine, I'll take your word for it but it is still anecdotal and you cannot speak to the minds of the thousands of other young men who were listening.  Nor can you speak to how they recall it.  Nor can you speak to the many more thousands who read the talk that was published and distributed in pamphlet form.  Nor can you speak to the minds of those who have read it online.  Nor can you speak to the minds of those who heard it delivered in my stake several years ago.  And on and on.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Which means it could have been years ago.  32 possible suicides spread out over ten years rather different than 32 in three months.  Such statistics should never have been used to claim there was a spike in suicide deaths by her.

I think she's clarified that these were only reported during the months mentioned.  Did she claim that there has been a "spike in suicide deaths" or just in reports she's been receiving?  

Is there a transcript or recording of what she actually stated in the talk she gave?  (If not, that's really unfortunate because it could clear up a lot of what she actually stated vs. what was written and how accurate that was.) 

I do agree that she could have spoken out sooner to clarify anything that had been misrepresented.

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Seriously?  People feel guilty for being attacked all the time and for whatever response they choose to give.  Maybe the kid thought he had done something to provoke whatever his companion had done and therefore it was his fault he ended up hitting the guy.

I get it's possible he felt guilty for hitting him if it was provoked in some way, but it's more likely that it wasn't provoked and he felt guilty.  I'm simply saying it's possible either way. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The hitting was linked explicitly imo to protecting oneself.  This is no justification for violence simply because someone is gay.  At worse, someone might take it as suggesting it is alright to hit someone who is making verbal suggestions, but there is likely much more going on if someone goes there then just being aware of this talk.

I agree.  This talk alone wouldn't provide justification or impetus.  It'd have been nice, no doubt, if there was clarification on this.  But there wasn't.  And that's a shame.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Then why in the world did Elder Packer say that it was appropriate to protect himself?  Do you really think that just the companion being gay would be something the elder would need to be protected from in Elder Packer's view?

It really doesn't matter what I think, really.  No one really knows.  So we're left guessing anyone can guess either way for whatever reason. 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Packer was not speaking in Greek.  He was not using high-falootin' mumbo jumbo.  He said:

Also, I'm not even sure this article gets discussed anymore.  I've never seen it used in any church setting.

Thanks,

-Smac

And the talk, as originally given, was in a priesthood session of general conference, where young men would have heard it in the presence of their fathers, grandfathers, bishops, young men presidents, quorum advisers, etc., any of whom could have clarified it if there were questions in a young man's mind.

I haven't heard it discussed in a long time, except by antagonists, critics, apostates and anti-Mormons on hostile internet fora.

But as I mentioned, it is accessible on the Church website.

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've already said I wish, in retrospect, there had been greater clarity.

But for those who understand the role of an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ and have observed Elder/President Packer for many years and have come to know his heart through his numerous sermons and actions as an apostle of the Lord, it is not reasonable to jump to the conclusion that he would be advocating gratuitous violence against another -- for any reason.

I don't accept it.

As I said, those who have hostile inclinations toward the Chruch of Jesus Christ and/or President Packer might be inclined to put a misinterpretation on his words. But that says more about them than it does about him.

That's fine, if that's how you feel, Scott.  But that doesn't help those who see it as a problem.  I feel it appropriate to grant them their feelings too and not see them as hostile or THE problem, necessarily. 

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My first-hand recollection of the occasion when the talk was delivered (including being physically present), and my awareness of it over the years is better than the unsubstantiated assumptions of those who are coming late to the party and, I daresay in many cases, were not even born yet when the talk was first delivered and published.

I find this irrelevant, Scott.  The talk is published by the Church, as it turns out that means it can be consumed by anyone even today.  Your personal feelings about it don't have any bearing on the person who read it online for the first time.  We're all free to take someone's words and come away with our own conclusions and feelings. 

[stemelbow]

I really do wish the Wendy apologized for the confusion with the number and left it at that.  her response was not helpful.  Blaming everyone else is pretty petty.  Sure she can't help it if she didn't mean the number of suicides came in a certain time frame and yet others assumed it.  She should acknowledge the impression came from somewhere and it could have inadvertently came from her. 

She needs to apologize for the mistake, I'd say. 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If he had stated that the companion was making sexual advances, didn't stop when asked, and so his companion had to hit and floor him - I wouldn't be criticizing.

As I've stated several times now, the criticisms I have seen come from his lack of disclosure at what prompted physical violence.

The criticisms almost invariably jump to the conclusion that he is "condoning" violence against gays -- as Daniel expressed it in a post yesterday, the one I called him on.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's fine, if that's how you feel, Scott.  But that doesn't help those who see it as a problem.  I feel it appropriate to grant them their feelings too and not see them as hostile or THE problem, necessarily. 

Deliberately mischaracterizing what someone says -- or persisting in such mischaracterization once one has been corrected -- is an act of hostility.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I really do wish the Wendy apologized for the confusion with the number and left it at that.  her response was not helpful.  Blaming everyone else is pretty petty.  Sure she can't help it if she didn't mean the number of suicides came in a certain time frame and yet others assumed it.  She should acknowledge the impression came from somewhere and it could have inadvertently came from her. 

She needs to apologize for the mistake, I'd say. 

I pretty much agree.  I think a retraction would be better, particularly given the considerable news coverage resulting from "the number."

Thank you,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I find this irrelevant, Scott.  The talk is published by the Church, as it turns out that means it can be consumed by anyone even today.  Your personal feelings about it don't have any bearing on the person who read it online for the first time.  We're all free to take someone's words and come away with our own conclusions and feelings. 

Any receiver of a spoken or written communication has the responsibility to try to understand it accurately. Refusal to try to do this is inexcusable.

You may see it as advisable to give the defamers a pass; I don't.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Deliberately mischaracterizing what someone says -- or persisting in such mischaracterization once one has been corrected -- is an act of hostility.

no one has deliberately mischaracterized what was said.  To characterize another of deliberately mischaracterizing someone, when this other did not, then, might be considered an act of hostility, according tot his reasoning.  I don't think it wise to go there.  leave the intentions out of it and argue the merits, I'd say.