An Outsider's Perspective on the Fabricated/Exaggerated/Unsubstantiated Suicide Statistic Debacle

[JulieM]

I've read the clarification from Wendy Montgomery and she explains the discrepancy well.  I do wish she'd spoken out sooner, but it's a reasoned response. 

The suicides were reported during that time, but didn't all take place those months.  Also, some may not have been in the state of Utah as others reported or were reported as accidental deaths.  That clarifies things regarding the numbers.

I think we should celebrate if the numbers are wrong instead of arguing.  However, sadly it does appear they're accurate, just that the time period and locations were incorrectly understood and reported by others (blogs, newspaper articles, etc.).

This was already discussed at length over on the now locked thread.  So, I'm not sure why there was a need to rehash all this?

Edited February 5, 2016 by JulieM

[Avatar4321]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I've read the clarification from Wendy Montgomery and she explains the discrepancy well.  I do wish she'd spoken out sooner, but it's a reasoned response. 

The suicides were reported during that time, but didn't all take place those months.  Also, some may not have been in the state of Utah as others reported or were reported as accidental deaths.  That clarifies things regarding the numbers.

I think we should celebrate if the numbers are wrong instead of arguing.  However, sadly it does appear they're accurate, just that the time period and locations were incorrectly understood and reported by others (blogs, newspaper articles, etc.).

This was already discussed at length over on the now locked thread.  So, I'm not sure why there was a need to rehash all this?

It doesn't appear they are accurate at all. In fact there is still zero evidence of any suicide in response to the policy change.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I've read the clarification from Wendy Montgomery and she explains the discrepancy well.  I do wish she'd spoken out sooner, but it's a reasoned response. 

The suicides were reported during that time, but didn't all take place those months.  Also, some may not have been in the state of Utah as others reported or were reported as accidental deaths.  That clarifies things regarding the numbers.

I think we should celebrate if the numbers are wrong instead of arguing.  However, sadly it does appear they're accurate, just that the time period and locations were incorrectly understood and reported by others (blogs, newspaper articles, etc.).

This was already discussed at length over on the now locked thread.  So, I'm not sure why there was a need to rehash all this?

I'm not persuaded it's all that common for a suicide to be reported as an accident. Also, as has been pointed out, suicides are generally too complicated to be blamed on one single factor (such as disapproval of a new policy). 

Finally, if some of the deaths occurred before November, they can't be blamed on the new policy. 

Edited February 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not persuaded it's all that common for a suicide to be reported as an accident. Also, as has been pointed out, suicides are generally too complicated to be blamed on one single factor (such as disapproval of a new policy). 

I agree that we don't know if these suicides are a result of the new policy.  But, I doubt that Wendy (a fellow active member of the church) would lie about what has been reported to her numbers wise (just the time frame is questionable).

I do know that suicides are not always reported as such.  I have a family member where this happened.  It was a drug overdose and we know it was suicide (a note left) but was recorded as an accidental overdose.  

[Calm]

The problem with not having a death date attached is we have no way of knowing if a reported suicide is 10 days, 10 weeks, 10 months, or ten years ago.  Given the changing cultural responses over that time, both in the US (assuming they all took place here) and among LDS, it makes a difference even outside the difference between 30 suicides over a few months period and 30 suicides over many years...is the rate increasing or decreasing, we can't even tell that.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Great observations--I fully agree.

In the desire to defend what many have perceived to be a deliberate attack on the church (although I never saw it as such), my concern is that there may be such an overcompensating effort to dismiss Ms. Montgomery's credibility and absolve LDS individuals and/or culture from any negative influence or contribution to the despair of suicidal gay Latter-day Saints that some kid, somewhere, decides to make another stupid and manipulative decision just to make the point that they ARE hurting and suicides DO exist--just like Stuart Matis' pointless, manipulative, and profoundly wasteful publicity stunt.  And as many have stated, even "just" one is one too many.

My concern is that in an effort to arrive at the truth of numbers, many may overcompensate by vilifying Ms. Montgomery by attributing motivations to her that I don't believe she ever had...

I hope we all don't forget that suicide and suicide ideation IS a thing, and take enough care to remember that there ARE impressionable and hurting youth who are out there, listening and watching, and that what we say and how we say it can have a profound effect on them, for good or ill.

This is the ends justify the means.  She lied and many want to excuse of lying as the leader of Mama Dragons because in the end the cause is just.  That is not the way it works.  

Do you hear, Gay men almost always abuse teenage boys in scouting and any time they get close to young men.  They are 250 times more likely to sexually abuse teenagers than any other group.  It is tragic that no one talks about this.  You see the danger in allowing activists of any stripe lead with lies and propaganda rather than just tell the truth.  When was a single suicide not significant?  Why exaggerate the statistic?

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This is the ends justify the means.  She lied and many want to excuse of lying as the leader of Mama Dragons because in the end the cause is just.  

It's not fair to say that Wendy lied (unless you have a quote that is a proven lie?).  Whatever she said in her speech was interpreted a certain way and run with (blogs, news articles and so on).  She did clarify, explain, and correct what was being attributed to her.  Again, I wish she'd done this sooner, but at least she did  clarify.

But you don't know that "she lied" unless you have quotes that I haven't seen.

Edited February 5, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree that we don't know if these suicides are a result of the new policy.  But, I doubt that Wendy (a fellow active member of the church) would lie about what has been reported to her numbers wise (just the time frame is questionable).

I do know that suicides are not always reported as such.  I have a family member where this happened.  It was a drug overdose and we know it was suicide (a note left) but was recorded as an accidental overdose.  

I'm not saying she lied. It does appear at least that she was careless in how she received and processed what was told to her and how she conveyed it to others. 

I'm still not persuaded that it is all that common to commit suicide and make it appear to be accident. Were all of the accidental deaths of teens in Utah in the last two months drug overdoses? I see no indication of that. 

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not saying she lied. It does appear at least that she was careless in how she received and processed what was told to her and how she conveyed it to others. 

I'm still not persuaded that it is all that common to commit suicide and make it appear to be accident. Were all of the accidental deaths of teens in Utah in the last two months drug overdoses? I see no indication of that. 

Wendy has said they weren't all over the last 2 or 3 months, only that's when they were reported to her.  I've also read that they didn't all take place in Utah, but I'm not sure that came from her.

Have you read her statement and effort to clarify what was reported?

Edited February 5, 2016 by JulieM

[JulieM]

Below is a copy of Wendy's statement for those who haven't read it.  As far as I know, it's the only quote we have from her on this (unless I've missed it).  Everything else seems to be hearsay or interpretations of her speech.  It would be nice if we had a copy or recording of what she stated.   I do wish she had clarified earlier if she was misquoted.

Here is her recent statement:

"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."

 

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did Smac say she had fabricated the data? I thought his point has been that she has been careless in her assumptions. I think he or perhaps someone else used the word "sloppy." That's pretty much how I see it. 

I may have said that.  Someone fabricated information about this topic.  I think that's hard to dispute.  Regarding how this turned into such a mess, it now looks like she's kinda sorta throwing John Gustav-Wrathall under the bus (from a comment by Wendy to a blog entry by "Geoff B."):

Quote

The number was released by John Gustav-Wrathall, president of Affirmation, in an article he wrote, after I had a conversation with him about it. I had been sitting on the accumulating numbers for weeks. I likely would not have gone public with it, since I had promised privacy to the family members who reached out to me. But once the number was out there, I answered questions asked of me as best I could without breaking the privacy of those who had lost loved ones. I responded to the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune, which are the articles I posted on my FB wall. Where it spread from there was out of my control.

So which of them came up with the idea of publishing these numbers to the world?  Which one of them first characterized the numbers as "documented?"

Meanwhile, a little later on in the above quote she goes on to suggest that people who are upset at her fabricated numbers are "shoot[ing] the messenger" because "the information offered is upsetting or doesn’t jive with their own opinions."  Geoff then responds with a fairly even-handed response to her, including this excellent point:

Quote

I believe that people who spend a lot of time emphasizing their problems with the Church’s policies are making the problem worse, not better. There are charitable ways to describe the Church’s position, some of which I outline in the OP. Why not concentrate on that? Why not concentrate on the reality that God loves everybody? Why not concentrate that every single person put on Earth has had temptations they had to overcome, and only one of them, the one perfect person, was able to go through his life without succumbing to those temptations? So, if that is true, the human experience is one of learning to overcome temptations and to acquire self control, but the great news is that nobody ever does it perfectly, and we can all be forgiven for our mistakes and transgressions? Instead, what I see from many supposed advocates of people with same-sex attraction is a lot of anger directed at the Church, with the constant repeated refrain that the Church does not want people with same-sex attraction. The reality, as described by a few commenters above, is that the Church and its members want EVERYBODY to come to church. Why do you think we keep on having all of those endless meetings about home and visiting teaching? So, again, many liberal/progressive Mormons are making the situation worse for these people rather than better.

Geoff also notes that Wendy Montgomery apparently has a penchant for misusing (fabricating?) data regarding teen suicide (in ways which - surprise! - make the LDS Church look really, really bad):

Quote

I would like to link a post mentioned by Bookslinger in the comments that is relevant here. There is a history of Wendy Montgomery exaggerating claims about gay teen suicide. When you look at the data, there is simply no corroboration of her claims.

Here is what the article says:

“Unfortunately, however, these stories seem to be accompanied, more and more frequently, by statistical claims that are not supported by data. Mrs. Montgomery’s assertion that Mormons have the highest gay teen suicide rate in the country is unsourced in the original interview, and other blogs and outlets making similar claims are also missing sources. I surveyed all the government and health data I could find on youth suicide in the United States, and was unable to find any agency that collects public data by religion or sexual orientation (data so specific would be very difficult to collect). In fact, the American Association of Suicidology’s LGBT Resource Sheet notes, “to date, there is no empirical data regarding the number of completed suicides within the LGBT community.” The claim appears to be fabricated.

Other claims to the effect that Mormons, or Utahns, have a unique or unusually acute problem with gay teen suicide, or even teen suicide, cannot be supported by any data I can find.”

http://virtuoussociety.com/2015/01/26/re-examining-gay-mormon-youth-and-suicide-what-does-the-data-say/

Read the whole thing (including the part where Wendy's husband weighs in and claims that the LDS Church is a "highly rejecting environment," and that "LGBT youth from highly rejecting environments are 8x more likely to commit suicide" and where he attempts to bully others for questioning or disagreeing with his and his wife's statements).

This is becoming a cautionary tale.  The more I read remarks by Wendy (and, more recently, by her husband), the more inclined I am to believe her/their statements on this issue are borne not so much of empirical data, but rather of A) a blinkered, overzealous devotion to a narrative that is, in both form and function, hostile to the LDS Church (and increasingly so), B) a failure to appreciate the explosive nature of her claims (which, as we can see, clearly got away from her), and C) a continuing refusal to acknowledge error, or to issue a retraction and apology (instead of the current posture of . . . blaming everyone else).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

Below is a copy of Wendy's statement for those who haven't read it.  As far as I know, it's the only quote we have from her on this (unless I've missed it).  Everything else seems to be hearsay or interpretations of her speech.  It would be nice if we had a copy or recording of what she stated.   I do wish she had clarified earlier if she was misquoted.

Here is her recent statement:

"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."

 

 

As I mentioned elsewhere I read her statement and it made me less inclined to believe it was unintentional. She blamed others for the misunderstanding. She shows no remorse whatsoever. No apology. She just pretends that somehow she is the victim because people have pointed out that her claim is demonstrably false.

I've seen these tells before. In politicians who get caught in lies or criminals exposed in the court.

And I think it's absurd to presume she is telling the truth just because she is s member when we've already had evidence that she is unreliable, willing to make sloppy claims if it suits her goal, and shows no remorse when caught doing so.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

Wendy has said they weren't all over the last 2 or 3 months, only that's when they were reported to her.  I've also read that they didn't all take place in Utah, but I'm not sure that came from her.

Have you read her statement and effort to clarify what was reported?

Oh yes, I've read it. It strikes me as back pedaling, rationalization, blame shifting, speculation and waving off of responsibility. 

Also, if they took place over a longer period than the last two or three months, that nullifies the initial claim of a rash of suicides all stemming from the announcement of the policy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I may have said that.  Someone fabricated information about this topic.  I think that's hard to dispute.  Regarding how this turned into such a mess, it now looks like she's kinda sorta throwing John Gustav-Wrathall under the bus (from a comment by Wendy to a blog entry by "Geoff B."):

So which of them came up with the idea of publishing these numbers to the world?  Which one of them first characterized the numbers as "documented?"

Meanwhile, a little later on in the above quote she goes on to suggest that people who are upset at her fabricated numbers are "shoot[ing] the messenger" because "the information offered is upsetting or doesn’t jive with their own opinions."  Geoff then responds with a fairly even-handed response to her, including this excellent point:

Geoff also notes that Wendy Montgomery apparently has a penchant for misusing (fabricating?) data regarding teen suicide (in ways which - surprise! - make the LDS Church look really, really bad):

Read the whole thing (including the part where Wendy's husband weighs in and claims that the LDS Church is a "highly rejecting environment," and that "LGBT youth from highly rejecting environments are 8x more likely to commit suicide" and where he attempts to bully others for questioning or disagreeing with his and his wife's statements).

This is becoming a cautionary tale.  The more I read remarks by Wendy (and, more recently, by her husband), the more inclined I am to believe her/their statements on this issue are borne not so much of empirical data, but rather of A) a blinkered, overzealous devotion to a narrative that is, in both form and function, hostile to the LDS Church (and increasingly so), B) a failure to appreciate the explosive nature of her claims (which, as we can see, clearly got away from her), and C) a continuing refusal to acknowledge error, or to issue a retraction and apology (instead of the current posture of . . . blaming everyone else).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yeah, there's a whole lotta fabricatin' goin' on. I can see that. 

Edited February 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

It appears that Wendy, and possibly her husband, are willing to be the type of activists that will do a whole lot of things to achieve their desired end.  Did she lie?  In technical terms it appears she did not lie, but she seems to play fast and loose with facts if it supports her objectives.  It is odd that she apparently is good at making the LDS Church look bad rather than her own cause.

I was particularly impressed with John Gustav-Wrathall's comments cited by Smac above.  

Can an activist look at the whole picture or must they only focus on the negative or interpret everything from the negative perspective?  Seems like Wendy has chosen to throw out the whole picture and focuses only on the negative.  She got caught with her hand in the cookie jar and it is the fault of mommy and daddy, the church, the reporters, the readers, the Jews and Chinese, and everyone else except her.  

[Storm Rider]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I doubt you intended to characterize Wendy Montgomery as a follower of Satan, but the last line above sort of comes across that way.

I think Wendy Montgomery is in many ways (most ways, even) a genuinely good and decent person.  But I think she has become seriously misguided as to the issue of homosexuals and the LDS Church.  She has a gay son, and she wants to protect him.  That is laudable and commendable.  She apparently has some grievances with how homosexuals are treated by members of the LDS Church, and about how LDS doctrines and policies affect people like her son.  That is understandable and commendable.  But she is way, way off the grid here.  I will give her the benefit of the doubt and surmise that her zeal to protect her son has, to some extent, morphed into something off balance and not altogether healthy.  I am reminded of Paul's caution in Romans 10: 

If this scripture is applicable to her, then she's not alone.  I must admit that there have been too many times when I have let my zeal to defend the Church morph into . . . something else.  I have apologized many times on this board for saying things in the heat of the moment.

I hope Wendy Montgomery takes this unfortunate event as an opportunity to step back and re-evaluate what she is doing and why.  I think we should all do that on a regular basis.

Thanks,

-Smac

My intent was not to identify Wendy as a follower of Satan, BUT her work, at least in this instance, does exactly what Satan would do.  Too often we allow ourselves to be used - weather unconsciously or consciously, to do evil.  Wendy goes out of her way to spin information in the worst possible light.  She chooses to distort the Church's policy and she uses her perceptions - the number of suicides directly related to the policy - to make the Church look bad.  Who would want that to happen?  Who is benefited?  

I am certain that my actions have helped the evil one on many, many occasions.  Am I Satan's follower?  Not consciously I am not - I know my Master, but I have also done wrong things.  It is in this context that I include Wendy - your words above are more gentle and may be better, but as we have all heard - if the shoe fits wear it.  If we don't want to wear that shoe then take it off. 

May we all recover a balance and are able to see the whole picture.  Mama Dragon is an apt name that she has chosen.

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

This was already discussed at length over on the now locked thread.  So, I'm not sure why there was a need to rehash all this?

This.  It's an awful thing to accuse someone of fabricating the suicides of young people and I cannot imagine that Wendy Montgomery did that.

However, it appears that she allowed a misunderstanding of the time period and possible reasons for the suicides to continue for days before she spoke out and clarified.  IMO, she should have spoken out sooner when she saw the headlines and how her information was being reported incorrectly regarding these.  It seems that things were happening fast and she may not have known how to handle it.  At least she did write a clarification.

I agree that this thread is just a "rehash" of the other thread and wonder why it was started.  It seems that it is just another attempt to throw the same accusations again.

 

.

Edited February 5, 2016 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Nevo said:

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

You've accused her of "fabricating the data" but I haven't seen anything yet that would support that conclusion. Regarding the disparity with the state's data, her husband has noted that "if you look into how suicide data is classified, anything that can be attributed as an accident and/or incidents of drug overdoses whether via legal or illegal drugs are not classified as suicides unless there is a specific note of intent. A majority of the suicides we know of were via drug overdoses (legal and illegal.)" I think the most we can say at this point is that the claims remain unverified.

It is helpful to hear John Gustav-Wrathall's own reaction to her claims during the Fabrizio interview I cited.  He and the other guests gave no support for the accuracy of the figures she gave.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Finally, if some of the deaths occurred before November, they can't be blamed on the new policy. 

Yes, and from the point of view of John Gustav-Wrathall (himself gay and active in his ward), it is not really a new policy.

[Sleeper Cell]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

This.  It's an awful thing to accuse someone of fabricating the suicides of young people and I cannot imagine that Wendy Montgomery did that.

However, it appears that she allowed a misunderstanding of the time period and possible reasons for the suicides to continue for days before she spoke out and clarified.  IMO, she should have spoken out sooner when she saw the headlines and how her information was being reported incorrectly regarding these.  It seems that things were happening fast and she may not have known how to handle it.  At least she did write a clarification.

I agree that this thread is just a "rehash" of the other thread and wonder why it was started.  It seems that it is just another attempt to throw the same accusations again.

 

.

Its even more awful to accuse someone (or some group) of having culpability in the suicides of young people.  

Actually, it would be worse for the cause she espouses if it turns out that Wendy Montgomery really was misquoted by her fellow activists and sympathizers (and everybody else) than if the quotes were accurate.  Her statements may be explained away as the mistakes of an “amateur researcher” (I do not know her actual background), or attributed to her heart being “heavy with grief for months now” from talking with the loved ones of young suicide victims.  But what is the excuse of  her fellow activists and sympathizers who ran with the story, apparently without taking the most elementary steps to at least verify the plausibility of the “data?”   

You say that “this thread is just a rehash of the other thread” and wonder why it was started.  While I cannot speak for the OP,  I think Smac’s point about “this becoming a cautionary tale,” in itself, makes this “rehash” worthwhile.  I just pray that this cautionary tale doesn’t someday turn into “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”  

[Jeanne]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh yes, I've read it. It strikes me as back pedaling, rationalization, blame shifting, speculation and waving off of responsibility. 

Also, if they took place over a longer period than the last two or three months, that nullifies the initial claim of a rash of suicides all stemming from the announcement of the policy. 

Hmmm...back pedaling, rationalization..and waving off responsibility...I have heard this has been done before..where could she have learned that?

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, JulieM said:

Wendy has said they weren't all over the last 2 or 3 months, only that's when they were reported to her.  I've also read that they didn't all take place in Utah, but I'm not sure that came from her.

Have you read her statement and effort to clarify what was reported?

If she knew they hadn't all occurred during the last two months, why did she specifically report that they had when she first spoke about them?

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If she knew they hadn't all occurred during the last two months, why did she specifically report that they had when she first spoke about them?

Do you have a quote by her stating that?  

She most likely could have stated more clearly that these suicides were reported to her during those months, but did she specifically state that they took place during the last two months?

Edited February 5, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Its even more awful to accuse someone (or some group) of having culpability in the suicides of young people.  

Actually, it would be worse for the cause she espouses if it turns out that Wendy Montgomery really was misquoted by her fellow activists and sympathizers (and everybody else) than if the quotes were accurate.  Her statements may be explained away as the mistakes of an “amateur researcher” (I do not know her actual background), or attributed to her heart being “heavy with grief for months now” from talking with the loved ones of young suicide victims.  But what is the excuse of  her fellow activists and sympathizers who ran with the story, apparently without taking the most elementary steps to at least verify the plausibility of the “data?”   

You say that “this thread is just a rehash of the other thread” and wonder why it was started.  While I cannot speak for the OP,  I think Smac’s point about “this becoming a cautionary tale,” in itself, makes this “rehash” worthwhile.  I just pray that this cautionary tale doesn’t someday turn into “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”  

You can pretty much just go back over to the other thread and read it because there's nothing new here (from what I've seen so far).   

 

[Mystery Meat]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

This.  It's an awful thing to accuse someone of fabricating the suicides of young people and I cannot imagine that Wendy Montgomery did that.

However, it appears that she allowed a misunderstanding of the time period and possible reasons for the suicides to continue for days before she spoke out and clarified.  IMO, she should have spoken out sooner when she saw the headlines and how her information was being reported incorrectly regarding these.  It seems that things were happening fast and she may not have known how to handle it.  At least she did write a clarification.

I agree that this thread is just a "rehash" of the other thread and wonder why it was started.  It seems that it is just another attempt to throw the same accusations again.

 

.

She has a history of fabricating, exaggerating or being very sloppy with the truth.

So she does not get the benefit of the doubt any more. In fact her fabrications, exaggerations and sloppiness reveal her true motives and colors.