LDS Church Donates $25K to Affirmation (Re: Suicide Prevention Training)

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Members here wouldn’t let someone get away with making insulting or unfair portrayals of a church leader without any references to show they were being accurate, even if they did say it was just an opinion.  USU posted so many unflattering and unsubstantiated slurs against Carol Lynn Pearson that he needs to be held accountable (also a CFR was asked for too).

I've personally seen some pretty bad behavior from church leaders, and there are a few of them that I don't think are particularly good people because of my experience with them. That said, I would be banned from this board immediately if I shared that anecdotal experience about high church leaders as reflecting on their character. I would think banning would be appropriate. 

[Calm]

Posters are describing Joseph Smith in negative ways in their personal opinion all the time just as others describe Dehlin or Kelly in negative ways.  And other posters state they disagree, sometimes vigorously.  I am not sure what you expect should be different here.

As to a link where USU stated it was his personal experience and therefore he couldn't provide documentation:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70764-lds-church-donates-25k-to-affirmation-re-suicide-prevention-training/?do=findComment&comment=1209834926

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've personally seen some pretty bad behavior from church leaders, and there are a few of them that I don't think are particularly good people because of my experience with them. That said, I would be banned from this board immediately if I shared that anecdotal experience about high church leaders as reflecting on their character. I would think banning would be appropriate. 

Reporting it as gossip, which is what I might describe sharing personal anecdotes depending on the situation depending on how they are presented (if the only purpose is to make someone look bad, for example)...I can see that.

I am only arguing against demanding documentation for what I believe has been clarified as personal experience and what is obvious as personal opinion.

If you want to report it as a character attack to the mods, I have no problem with that.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Posters are describing Joseph Smith in negative ways in their personal opinion all the time just as others describe Dehlin or Kelly in negative ways.  And other posters state they disagree, sometimes vigorously.  I am not sure what you expect should be different here.

As to a link where USU stated it was his personal experience and therefore he couldn't provide documentation:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70764-lds-church-donates-25k-to-affirmation-re-suicide-prevention-training/?do=findComment&comment=1209834926

Thanks for posting that. I think there's a difference between saying "I think Joseph Smith was ...." and "Joseph Smith did ..." It's one thing to say, "jkwilliams is a hateful anti-Mormon," and quite another to say, "jkwilliams has encouraged church members to disrupt sacrament meetings." One is an opinion, and the other is a specific accusation. 

That's my problem with USU's comments: he said Carol Lynn Pearson was guilty of saying and doing specific things, without any way to corroborate the accusation.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Reporting it as gossip, which is what I might describe sharing personal anecdotes depending on the situation depending on how they are presented (if the only purpose is to make someone look bad, for example)...I can see that.

I am only arguing against demanding documentation for what I believe has been clarified as personal experience and what is obvious as personal opinion.

If you want to report it as a character attack to the mods, I have no problem with that.

No, I'm not saying it was a character attack, just that specific accusations were made that cannot be substantiated. 

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Thanks for posting that. I think there's a difference between saying "I think Joseph Smith was ...." and "Joseph Smith did ..." It's one thing to say, "jkwilliams is a hateful anti-Mormon," and quite another to say, "jkwilliams has encouraged church members to disrupt sacrament meetings." One is an opinion, and the other is a specific accusation. 

That's my problem with USU's comments: he said Carol Lynn Pearson was guilty of saying and doing specific things, without any way to corroborate the accusation.

Bingo.

For example, he stated:

""She cashed in on her celebrity from that book with speaking engagements, advising abandoned women to follow her example by taking their aids infected former spouses back and caring for them."

ETA:

He also claims that Pearson advocates for women to embrace their abuser:

"It's her advocacy for embracement of her abuser that offends me."

And then he refuses to provide any sources to back up any of those specific accusations.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Bingo.

For example (and I can give more), he stated:

""She cashed in on her celebrity from that book with speaking engagements, advising abandoned women to follow her example by taking their aids infected former spouses back and caring for them."

As I said, I am not very familiar with Carol Lynn Pearson. I know she cared for her gay ex-husband when he was dying of AIDS, and I know she wrote a lot of cheesy poetry back in the day (and I know she was on our blacklist at the COB). Other than that, my only connection to her is that it was her daughter's book that my book beat for the Brodie Award several years ago (yay me!). But I'd find it untoward to make specific accusations that cannot be documented, no matter who the person.

[JulieM]

On 7/17/2018 at 9:00 AM, USU78 said:

Would you care to have me expand on why I profoundly disagree with her actions and why they ought not to be emulated?  I'm happy to do so, but will not post it unless you express interest.

I missed you posting this earlier (just now going back and reading).  You don’t believe her taking care of her dying husband was showing him Christlike, unconditional love?  

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

 But I'd find it untoward to make specific accusations that cannot be documented, no matter who the person.

True.  And him then saying it’s because someone told him something about her, so he can’t reveal his source, isn’t a good reference for all the definite accusations he’s made against her.

[Stargazer]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Agreed.  Then he needs to withdraw his accusations because as stated, he represents them as facts or as actual things that Pearson has advised, written or publicly stated. But then, he cannot give any references or quotes to back up his claims.  So he needs to provide references (and respond to the CFR that he's so flippantly refused to honor) or he needs to withdraw his specific claims against her. 

What he's done here is extremely unfair to do to anyone and no one would allow this here if it were being done against the Prophet or against any church leader.

The mods have weighed in here too.

I know the mods have weighed in. I've been reading.  But the mods are not infallible, nor all-knowing (except maybe for Hestia).

Again, he represents something that he has personally observed.  Is this not correct? If he witnessed President Nelson doing something that he had no documentary record of, would you still insist upon a CFR?  "I saw President Nelson smoking a pipe."  Did he take a picture of the event?  No?  Must he therefore take back his witness? What he claims he observed Pearson doing is in fact not illegal, nor actionable; in fact, it might not actually be immoral or wrong!  He just doesn't like some of what she did, however.  He has reasons for expressing his opinion on the matter.  I think he has a right to his opinion, and to express it. And you have the right to differ.

I just don't see the reasonableness of insisting upon documentation in this case.  I've read about how some people didn't like how Mother Teresa took care of some of the people her organization cared for.  I don't think I have the right to force them to document their personal opinion, regardless of whether I agree with their feelings.

 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Posters are describing Joseph Smith in negative ways in their personal opinion all the time just as others describe Dehlin or Kelly in negative ways.  And other posters state they disagree, sometimes vigorously.  I am not sure what you expect should be different here.

You have to see that there's a difference between someone saying that their opinion of Joseph Smith is that he was a false Prophet vs. them making a specific accusation that "Joseph Smith advocated for abused women to remain with and embrace their abuser".   USU did the latter.    

 

Edited July 18, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I know the mods have weighed in. I've been reading.  But the mods are not infallible, nor all-knowing (except maybe for Hestia).

  

(And I think my response to Calm above covers what I feel is the difference between what USU did against Pearson vs. just merely expressing his opinion). 

Edited July 18, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

  

(And I think my response to Calm above covers what I feel is the difference between what USU did against Pearson vs. just merely expressing his opinion). 

How long do  you think either one of us would last if we said we saw President Nelson smoking a pipe? 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

How long do  you think either one of us would last if we said we saw President Nelson smoking a pipe? 

Apparently we're fine as long as it was someone else who saw this and then they told us about it.  We'd be off the hook as far as providing a source or honoring a CFR  

Heck, there would even be members here coming forward to defend us and justify our behavior!

(Of course, a mod is trying to hold USU accountable....let's not forget that....)

Edited July 18, 2018 by ALarson

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I know the mods have weighed in. I've been reading.  But the mods are not infallible, nor all-knowing (except maybe for Hestia).

Again, he represents something that he has personally observed.  Is this not correct? If he witnessed President Nelson doing something that he had no documentary record of, would you still insist upon a CFR?  "I saw President Nelson smoking a pipe."  Did he take a picture of the event?  No?  Must he therefore take back his witness? What he claims he observed Pearson doing is in fact not illegal, nor actionable; in fact, it might not actually be immoral or wrong!  He just doesn't like some of what she did, however.  He has reasons for expressing his opinion on the matter.

He said it is something that someone told him about (not that he “personally observed”).  

And, he wasn’t just giving an opinion.  He accused Carol Lynn Pearson of stating or advocating (publicly) definite things.  If she’s doing that, it should be easy to prove or source.

He’s saying that she recommends or advocates for abused women to remain with their abuser or take them back if they do leave and to embrace them.  But where has she stated or written that?  There should be a quote he can post. That’s a serious accusation and not just an opinion.

Edited July 18, 2018 by JulieM

[Unaffiliated]

Is there any info on how we as individuals can donate to causes like this?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

You have to see that there's a difference between someone saying that their opinion of Joseph Smith is that he was a false Prophet vs. them making a specific accusation that "Joseph Smith advocated for abused women to remain with and embrace their abuser".   USU did the latter.    

 

I read his clarification of it being his personal experience as covering those comments, altering them from statements to opinion, but I can see why others don't.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

He said it is something that someone told him about (not that he “personally observed”).  

And, he wasn’t just giving an opinion.  He accused Carol Lynn Pearson of stating or advocating (publicly) definite things.  If she’s doing that, it should be easy to prove or source.

He’s saying that she recommends or advocates for abused women to remain with their abuser or take them back if they do leave and to embrace them.  But where has she stated or written that?  There should be a quote he can post. That’s a serious accusation and not just an opinion.

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I read his clarification of it being his personal experience as covering those comments, altering them from statements to opinion, but I can see why others don't.

Just to connect the dots

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Just to connect the dots

Yes, he stated someone else told him (he didn’t have his own personal experience with her).  The mods have told USU that “somebody told me” is not a correct way to respond to a CFR (it’s not “documentation”).

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70764-lds-church-donates-25k-to-affirmation-re-suicide-prevention-training/?do=findComment&comment=1209835175

 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by JulieM

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I read his clarification of it being his personal experience as covering those comments, altering them from statements to opinion, but I can see why others don't.

Do you believe Pearson personally spoke to USU herself?  I haven't seen where he's posted that.

He's making very specific claims regarding what she is advocating women do in situations of abuse or infidelity.  He needs to back them up with a reference to where she's done this.  Him just saying.....well, I know this because someone told me that's what someone told them she's doing....isn't documentation or a reference.

But, it appears that he's just blowing off the mods warning (he's had a day to do as they asked) or possibly he's just left the thread.  

Edited July 19, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

Re: the topic of this thread, there has been a development:

Quote

Affirmation veep resigns, calls acceptance of Mormon church donation for LGBTQ suicide prevention ‘morally reprehensible’
by Peggy Fletcher Stack

For Kimberly Anderson, accepting the LDS Church’s $25,000 gift to support LGBTQ suicide prevention was like hiring arsonists to fight fires.

After all, the Utah-based faith’s teachings and policies, in her view, are leading contributors to self-loathing and the desire for death among vulnerable LGBTQ Mormons.

So the Affirmation vice president resigned her post in the support group this week to protest a donation she finds “morally reprehensible.”

“To accept financial contributions from the LDS Church is not the problem for me,” the transgender former Mormon wrote in her resignation letter and posted on Facebook. “To have that funding go directly and explicitly to suicide-prevention efforts is something that I cannot abide.”

Mormonism has produced “an incredibly large amount of trauma in the LGBTQ population raised within the LDS Church,” she said. “Research is screaming at us that nearly 75 percent of our queer adults in the LDS Church are experiencing trauma, [specifically] from being taught … their gender identity or sexual attraction is deviant. This uniquely measurable trauma is at levels equal to a formal PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] diagnosis. Trauma and suicidal ideation go hand in hand.”

Anderson needs to be “clear of the institution that has caused me so much trauma and pain,” she wrote in the letter, but she is not sorry for the time she spent as Affirmation’s vice president.

Hmm.  Not sure how to respond to this.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 19, 2018 by smac97

[kllindley]

Just now, smac97 said:

Re: the topic of this thread, there has been a development:

d

Yeah, I commented on that a few pages back. I've read a lot of comments on her personal post-manifesto and discussion about it on Affirmation, Mormons Building Bridges, and Mama Dragons.  I had initially hoped that the majority of people on each of these forums would disagree with her. I was disappointed. Most of those commenting in these groups were mad about Affirmation accepting blood money. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

Yeah, I commented on that a few pages back. I've read a lot of comments on her personal post-manifesto and discussion about it on Affirmation, Mormons Building Bridges, and Mama Dragons.  I had initially hoped that the majority of people on each of these forums would disagree with her. I was disappointed. Most of those commenting in these groups were mad about Affirmation accepting blood money. 

People in "Mormons Building Bridges" and "Mama Dragons" are upset at the Church's donation of funds to Affirmation?

-Smac

[kllindley]

PS: if this is too much of a thread detail, let me know and I'll start a new thread. But, it is about LGBT suicide prevention and the Church. 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900025231/lds-church-comments-as-dan-reynolds-seeks-to-raise-dollar1-million-at-second-loveloud-music-fest.html

But what I find most frustrating was Dan Reynolds tweeting this: 

Having the @LDSchurch support @LOVELOUDfest is an important step in creating a safer place for our LGBTQ youth of Orthodox Faith. W that said, unless our LGBTQ youth are embraced & unequivocally accepted at home/church & encouraged to love as they choose we are failing them.

[LoudmouthMormon]

True, genuine efforts to bridge gaps and find common ground are rare.  Most of the time, one side or the other is pushing their agenda, and spinning things as "look at us being all noble and bridging the gap and compromising and meeting halfway and stuff".  

Two data points: 1) The church is giving real money to a group that supports, in some ways, lifestyles not in accordance to church wishes and hopes.   2) A more vocal opponent of the church, vocally leaves the group.

I have cautious hope that Affirmation's suicide prevention efforts may indeed be a good and noble thing.