Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, california boy said: I think it is important to keep these studies in a proper perspective. I absolutely believe that having a support group like church can be VERY helpful in making suicide less likely. That totally makes logical sense. But I have not read any studies that show those who are gay are helped by a religious faith background. Specifically those who are gay and brought up Mormon. I don't think there is any data that addresses that particular issue. Perhaps you have one to share? I am not saying that the Mormon Church contributes to gay suicide. Let me be clear about that. What I am saying is that to my knowledge, I don't think there is any data about this issue. Until we have some credible date, everyone is just projecting on both sides of the issue. Without data, your POV lacks just as much credibility as Dan Reynolds. I believe the burden of proof is on those who are accusing the Church of causing widespread suicides among youth.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Calm said: Not likely since I know many who do, who died fully in the faith. I think it is more about balance and if one focuses on criticisms or if one criticicizes in a conversation that includes a lot of positives as well and presents possibilities for change that one can begin to work on as an individual. Funny that about the only time I criticize the church is here. My future son-in-law didn't even know I wasn't active in the church because I've never said anything remotely critical to him. There is a lot to love about the church, and I still have a great deal of love and respect for the church, especially for its members. I guess I come across as being focused on criticism, based on my posts here. I guess I need to do better.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I guess some people are harder to persuade. Or some people are more malleable. We could go back and forth like this all day, but I wouldn’t see the point of it.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Or some people are more malleable. We could go back and forth like this all day, but I wouldn’t see the point of it. Just out of curiosity, can you give me an example of a valid criticism of the church you've heard?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Even when I was a believer here and elsewhere, I often saw valid criticisms and had no problem acknowledging them. The church isn't perfect, and it doesn't get everything right all the time. Who knows? Maybe acknowledging problems in the church turned me into an apostate. Until now, I didn’t see the last two sentences that you evidently added later. I think it is an example of passive-aggressiveness that doesn’t promote productive discourse. I wish you wouldn’t engage in it, though I acknowledge it is your right. Edited June 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Until now, I didn’t see the last sentence that you evidently added later. I think it is an example of passive-aggressiveness that doesn’t promote productive discourse. I wish you wouldn’t engage in it, though I acknowledge it is your right. It was a joke. Sheesh.
Calm Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) Quote Specifically those who are gay and brought up Mormon. I don't think there is any data that addresses that particular issue. Perhaps you have one to share? Hopefully we will get more studies that are more specific. What concerns me greatly with the push of many to make leaving the church a very visible option for gay members, especially teens, is that one study demonstrated increased suicide risk for those gay who left their childhood faith, even though there was also a negative correlation in their self esteem, etc. Things were worse, not better after leaving apparently from the stats generally speaking. We definitely need to improve how we treat those who are different in our church so the choice to stay with their faith is seen. In the long run it may be better to aggressively work on how language is used and support given within the Church rather than make it so all or nothing (you will not be fulfilled if you stay in the Church, but have a life long struggle suppressing part of who you are, etc.). We have no way of knowing, but it is possible that many of the suicides by Mormon LGBT came about because they were told and believed they had to choose one or the other, faith or fulfillment and being required to live the one without the other became seen as impossible. It is also possible that they were in their hearts already exmormon even if not out in the open about it and therefore had lost whatever protection it appears feeling one belongs to a religious community gives. We need to improve the positive and while recognizing the negative, not wallow in it or use it as a weapon when the ones it hurts are the ones in the middle, not those aimed at. And I mean this from all sides as I see many believers who think they are doing right by weaponizing issues to make gays look bad. Edited June 21, 2018 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Just out of curiosity, can you give me an example of a valid criticism of the church you've heard? That it made a misstep a couple of decades ago when the length of terms of service for male missionaries was shortened to 18 months. You’ll recall that didn’t last very long before it was changed back to two years. I’ll even give you an example of one I have that I’ve not heard others express. In official news releases Church Public Affairs sometimes uses the awkward “-person” construction, as in “spokesperson” or “chairperson.” I don’t like that. I wish Public Affairs would use AP style in this regard and say “spokesman” or “spokeswoman.” Edited June 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: That it made a misstep a couple of decades ago when the length of terms of service for male missionaries was shortened to 18 months. You’ll recall that didn’t last very long before it was changed back to two years. I’ll even give you an example of one I have that I’ve not heard others express. In official news releases Church Public Affairs sometimes uses the awkward “-person” construction, as in “spokesperson” or “chairperson.” I don’t like that. I wish Public Affairs would use AP style in this regard and say “chairman” or “chairwoman.” I was called for 18 months. 9 months into my mission, they changed it back to 2 years, and I stayed the extra 6 months.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It was a joke. Sheesh. But you seem to do that sort of thing often, and it tends to imply others are passing judgment on you that they might not be doing. Ostensibly, it is self-deprecation, but by implication, it is directed outward.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: But you seem to do that sort of thing often, and it tends to imply others are passing judgment on you that they might not be doing. Ostensibly, it is self-deprecation, but by implication, it is directed outward. It was meant as self-deprecation, as I really don't care if anyone judges the reasons I left the church. If anything, I find the various reasons ascribed to me to be pretty funny.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I was called for 18 months. 9 months into my mission, they changed it back to 2 years, and I stayed the extra 6 months. Yeah, so you know precisely what I’m talking about. I’ve heard a General Authority say it was a misstep.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Yeah, so you know precisely what I’m talking about. I’ve heard a General Authority say it was a misstep. The only issue for me was that I had saved enough money for 18 months, meaning my parents had to pay for the last 6 months.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It was meant as self-deprecation, as I really don't care if anyone judges the reasons I left the church. If anything, I find the various reasons ascribed to me to be pretty funny. Hence the passive-aggressiveness. If it were purely self-deprecation, there would be no element of motivation to comment on the “various” “funny” reasons “ascribed” to you, even if only by implication. No big deal, I suppose, except that it can put others on the defensive and thereby take the cinversation in an unpleasant direction. Just an observation. Take it for what it’s worth. Edited June 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Hence the passive-aggressiveness. If it were purely self-deprecation, there would be no element of motivation to comment on the “various” “funny” reasons “ascribed” to you. No big deal, I suppose, except that it can put others on the defensive and thereby take the cinversation in an unpleasant direction. Just an observation. Take it for what it’s worth. I suppose the only way that would put someone on the defensive is if they actually did think I left the church because I acknowledged its problems. Oh, well, I will try to avoid doing that. Sorry.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: The only issue for me was that I had saved enough money for 18 months, meaning my parents had to pay for the last 6 months. Whatever. You asked for an example, so I provided one.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Whatever. You asked for an example, so I provided one. And I appreciated the example. Not sure what the 'whatever' is for.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, jkwilliams said: I suppose the only way that would put someone on the defensive is if they actually did think I left the church because I acknowledged its problems. Oh, well, I will try to avoid doing that. Sorry. It could put them on the defensive if they didn’t actually think that but felt you were implying that they did.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: It could put them on the defensive if they didn’t actually think that but felt you were implying that they did. I didn't mean to imply that at all.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: The only issue for me was that I had saved enough money for 18 months, meaning my parents had to pay for the last 6 months. I have a relative who was quite dejected when it changed back prior to his return and he learned he would be staying longer. “I feel like somebody just shot my dog,” he reportedly said.
Calm Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) 43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Funny that about the only time I criticize the church is here. My future son-in-law didn't even know I wasn't active in the church because I've never said anything remotely critical to him. There is a lot to love about the church, and I still have a great deal of love and respect for the church, especially for its members. I guess I come across as being focused on criticism, based on my posts here. I guess I need to do better. I am not surprised This board is a pretty safe space for most. Mods keep it from going ballistic, the conversations encourage debate but we can slow the momentum by demanding it stay focused in documentation, many are just aliases to us so not a lot of baggage attached that may trigger gut responses, and most, most important we can always walk away from the board. It is a very controlled situation for people for the most part and therefore we will likely be more open, less careful about how what we say will impact others...after all they are asking for our opinions, why not give them? Many believers set up conversations where they are actually soliciting debate/criticisms...throw stuff out as a challenge. It is just silly if one then condemns others stepping into that role for always being critical. Same with the reverse, those who want to be critical, who come and put up deconversions and then get upset when people challenge certain thoughts...what were they expecting? Feels like a setup to me when that happens. Edited June 21, 2018 by Calm 1
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I have a relative who was quite dejected when it changed back prior to his return and he learned he would be staying longer. “I feel like somebody just shot my dog,” he reportedly said. I was working in the mission office, and there was this one elder who came in every day, complaining that we must be stealing the packages his mother sent him. He was pretty vocal in telling us how much he hated Bolivia and how he couldn't wait to get home. The day after the call about the extension, he came into the office, in tears, saying, "Is it true? Do we have to stay an extra 6 months?" He was overjoyed when we told him it was voluntary. Ironically, just before he went home, he met a Bolivian member and came back to Bolivia a month later to get married. His wife got homesick when they went back to North Carolina, so he lived in Bolivia for a year or so afterward.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, Calm said: I am not surprised This board is a pretty safe space for most. Mods keep it from going ballistic, the conversations encourage debate but we can slow the momentum by demanding it stay focused in documentation, many are just aliases to us so not a lot of baggage attached that may trigger gut responses, and most, most important we can always walk away from the board. Many believers set up conversations where they are actually soliciting debate/criticisms...throw stuff out as a challenge. It is just silly if one then condemns others stepping into that role for always being critical. I can be pretty negative, sometimes. But it's been a very long time since I had strong emotions about the church, and that's a good thing. As you say, the posts here seem designed to solicit criticism. Ask me about the good things the church does, and I'll talk all day. Doesn't happen here.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 1 minute ago, changed said: Let's say it's the 1920's or the 1930's, and the KKK is running around terrorizing people.... but you are not going to "blame" anyone, because "blame is part of shame", and is not empowering... so there is this particular belief system, and particular group of people who are causing harm, but no one will "blame" them for anything, and the problem gets solved... how? The problem is assigning blame where it doesn't belong. No one is responsible for my suicide attempt but me. No one saw it coming, so no one could have prevented, regardless of how much they loved and supported me. When you are suicidal, you aren't thinking about anyone else. All you can see is the pain and darkness, and you want it over. You are incapable of asking for help. Saying, Gee, if my wife had only loved me or supported me, it wouldn't have happened is nonsense. 4
Calm Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Until now, I didn’t see the last two sentences that you evidently added later. I think it is an example of passive-aggressiveness that doesn’t promote productive discourse. I wish you wouldn’t engage in it, though I acknowledge it is your right. The similar leaving a post with throwing out "I have said my piece, now you can bomb me" kind of statements are developing into a pet peeve of mine. One, it labels people as jerks before they do jerky stuff and second, it tends to frame any criticism as attacks. There is a good chance when that is said that strong criticisms, even attacks will happen based on the opinions or references made, but if one believes whatever one says is going to be viewed as an attack, why bother being careful in phrasing? Thus it immediately ups the negativity. And there have been several times I have seen when there is no definite reason for criticisms except for the assumption that those who might have some concerns are out of control jerks who delight in pounding one or that those who disagree with one only do it because of who one is and not what one just said. (I don't remember specific people doing this, just that it happens and seems to be happening more.) 3
Recommended Posts