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

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You've already surprised me with the characterizations you're making.  You say I'm slandering the church and damning them no matter what they do.  You're using analogies to paint LGBT people in very uncharitable ways.  I don't consider these tactics even handed.  

Is it frustrating when people point out your behavior? Or just that you still refuse to consider how your comments are actually interpreted?

[kllindley]

29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You seem to be suggesting that people who criticize the church over their policies toward gay members are just finding the latest excuse to attack the church. If the church were to change in this instance, the critics would simply find another excuse to attack the church. I didn't think you were that cynical. 

I'll admit that I am. I believe a very small minority are sincere and would be appeased. I don't believe most would. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm suggesting that as pertaining to some critics, yes.  There are principled and reasoned criticisms of the Church, to be sure.  But there are factions of those who are opposed to the Church whose position is reactionary.  Predicated on finding fault.

Consider, for example, this statement by Dale Morgan, a past critic of the Church, in a letter he wrote to Juanita Brooks in 1985 (see here😞

It is this sort of reactionary criticism that I find problematic.

Here's another example.  As we all know, Pres. Trump recently announced his pick for a replacement of Justice Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court.  A correspondent from "Campus Reform" went out and solicited reactions of people-on-the-street to Pres. Trump's choice.  The funny thing, though, was that the correspondent conducted these interviews before the choice had been announced.  The results were both amusing and illuminating:

I think there could have been principled objections to Pres. Trump's selection.  But the opinions in the video above are not principled.  Or reasoned.  They are reactionary.  These folks dislike Pres. Trump, ergo they dislike anything he does, no matter what it is.

Here's another one, with the same correspondent.  He went on campus at George Washington University and asked students about their opinions regarding Pres. Trump's recently-released tax plan.  However, in describing the plan, he attributed it to . . . Bernie Sanders.  Again, the results were both amusing and illuminating:

The policy is essentially irrelevant.  For these folks, if it's Bernie's plan, it's great!  If it's The Donald's plan, it's awful!

So it is, I think, with some critics of the Church.  Their complaints often come across and reactionary.  Knee-jerk.

By way of example: Let's say that Affirmation had announced that Cher or George Clooney had donated $25,000 to suicide prevention.  Would we be seeing vitriolic hatred in the Salt Lake Tribune's Comment section?  I don't think so.  But when the LDS Church does it, the knives come out in an instant.

I don't think my assessment of reactionary, neverending faultfinders (which, again, only represent a portion of the critics of the Church) is borne of cynicism.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps, then, you should say "some critics don't let up." Knee-jerk reactions run both ways. I know a few women heavily involved in the Mama Dragons organization, and they are just salt-of-the-earth types who love their gay family members and friends and also love the church. I can't square that with the regular vilification of that group that I hear. It's as if disagreeing with the church automatically makes one an enemy of God and of truth. It doesn't make any sense, unless I understand it as the same kind of reactionary response you describe.

[Tacenda]

Today the local news is running a campaign against sex abuse in Utah. They are running segments in each broadcast put out by ABC4News. I started thinking about the possible link that might connect suicide to being a sexual abuse victim. Looked it up and found several links. To me, this could be why we have a high suicide rate. It could stem from having been abused as a child. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/adele-mcdowell/suicide-and-childhood-sexual-abuse_b_9989128.html

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

I'll admit that I am. I believe a very small minority are sincere and would be appeased. I don't believe most would. 

I readily acknowledge that I went through about a 2-year period where I was just angry with the church, and I didn't see much good in it. I got past that, as I think most people who leave do at some point. A good example is the Recovery from Mormonism board. People over there rail against everything and anything related to the church (I know because I did), but if you're paying attention, pretty much everyone who posts there lasts a few months or perhaps even a year before they have vented all their emotions. And then they move on. I think there are probably fewer than 25 people on that board who have stayed longer than a year or two. For varying reasons, they have not gotten it out of their systems, and they keep plugging away. I'm sure those are the kinds of people who would not be satisfied by anything the church does, but I believe they are a tiny minority. Obviously, you disagree.

It's funny, but I used to hang out on a board for questioning Mormons and ex-Mormons (you wouldn't know it). It eventually faded away and died because most of us didn't care much about the church anymore. A few years ago, some friends set up a Facebook group for those of us who had become friends through that defunct board. We never talk about the church. Never. In fact, the last time I brought up something about the church a couple of years ago, the response was pretty universal: Do we have to talk about that?

I still find the church, its members, its history, and its beliefs to be fascinating. Sure, the November policy upset me for a while, and I still disagree with it, but I don't have a bunch of attacks waiting in the wings in case this one issue goes away. I don't know too many people who do.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Today the local news is running a campaign against sex abuse in Utah. They are running segments in each broadcast put out by ABC4News. I started thinking about the possible link that might connect suicide to being a sexual abuse victim. Looked it up and found several links. To me, this could be why we have a high suicide rate. It could stem from having been abused as a child. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/adele-mcdowell/suicide-and-childhood-sexual-abuse_b_9989128.html

I will just say that I have seen in my wife's family how abuse destroys lives and leads to suicidal ideation. Thankfully, no one in her family has succeeded at suicide, but the link is clear.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Lets say you weren't a member today and you had were investigating the church and gained a testimony that it was true.  Would you be willing to join the LDS church if it required you to disavow you parents relationship?  

Yes I would disavow their relationship if it was against the doctrines of the church, but I would not disavow them as my parents; I would still love and honor them as such. 

Let me just add an example to this. I had a situation where my own  teenage daughter had a relationship with  a boy that got her pregnant. It was a sin that was committed and against the doctrines of the church, but I didn't disavow my daughter,  I disavow the practice of having sex outside of marriage. And I still love and cherish my daughter and her child more than anyone else on this earth, and she knows it.  

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Perhaps, then, you should say "some critics don't let up." Knee-jerk reactions run both ways.

You'll note that I started my post with "I'm suggesting that as pertaining to some critics, yes" and concluded with a reference to "reactionary, neverending faultfinders (which, again, only represent a portion of the critics of the Church)."

Quote

I know a few women heavily involved in the Mama Dragons organization, and they are just salt-of-the-earth types who love their gay family members and friends and also love the church. I can't square that with the regular vilification of that group that I hear.

The "vilification" (such as it is) appears to center mostly on Wendy Montgomery's execrable behavior in A) using fabricated statistics to attack the Church by publicy accusing it of causing kids to kill themselves, B) publicly and falsely characterizing those statistics as being "documented" when they were not, C) failing to retract or apologize for these damnable falsehoods after having spread them to the four winds, and D) materially and unnecessarily adding to the difficulty in addressing suicide, and possibly even making the situation worse by making irresponsible claims that could contribute to "suicide contagion" (see this thread for more information).

I'm glad that there are salt-of-the-earth types in the Mama Dragons.  But have they disavowed any of the crap that Wendy Montgomery published to the world in their name?

Quote

It's as if disagreeing with the church automatically makes one an enemy of God and of truth.

Nope.  As I said: "There are principled and reasoned criticisms of the Church, to be sure.  But there are factions of those who are opposed to the Church whose position is reactionary.  Predicated on finding fault."

And this: "So it is, I think, with some critics of the Church.  Their complaints often come across and reactionary.  Knee-jerk."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 11, 2018 by smac97

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

... and in the face of truly disturbing and baseless accusations about causation. 

Yea...It's disturbing because it is true. Read some real tales of Carol Lynn Pearson. No need to get defensive here. It's not the moment for pointing fingers. 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious as to how you were able to gauge the Church's "motivations."

Thanks,

-Smac

This is done all the time, on every side imaginable. It shouldn't be a surprise. How are you NOT judging the church's motivations?

On other threads like this one I've seen comments by devout LDS, former LDS, and disaffected LDS alike, which assign motive to the church's actions, especially with LGBT issues. For example, in many cases people will make a comment that it is a PR move. Are they wrong? Can we know for sure? Is it defamatory to claim it's a PR move? PR concerns is a motivation and one that seems to be agreed on by a variety of people on different sides.

Something like this donation can have a various motives assigned to it: 1- the church is simply supporting a good cause because its a good cause, (the question would then be, how did the church choose to donate to this good cause versus other good causes) 2- the church is supporting a good cause and hopes to receive some positive PR for it (is there anything wrong with that?), 3- the church is supporting a good cause because it loves and supports the LGBT community (I doubt many on either side think this is the case).

But the point is, we all judge motivations and those judgements aren't always mean spirited, nor are they always wrong.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is done all the time, on every side imaginable. It shouldn't be a surprise. How are you NOT judging the church's motivations?

On other threads like this one I've seen comments by devout LDS, former LDS, and disaffected LDS alike, which assign motive to the church's actions, especially with LGBT issues. For example, in many cases people will make a comment that it is a PR move. Are they wrong? Can we know for sure? Is it defamatory to claim it's a PR move? PR concerns is a motivation and one that seems to be agreed on by a variety of people on different sides.

Something like this donation can have a various motives assigned to it: 1- the church is simply supporting a good cause because its a good cause, (the question would then be, how did the church choose to donate to this good cause versus other good causes) 2- the church is supporting a good cause and hopes to receive some positive PR for it (is there anything wrong with that?), 3- the church is supporting a good cause because it loves and supports the LGBT community (I doubt many on either side think this is the case).

But the point is, we all judge motivations and those judgements aren't always mean spirited, nor are they always wrong.

I should clarify that the church's publicly stated reasons for what they did were at odds with the reasons they gave in private. That's what I mean by motivations.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is done all the time, on every side imaginable. It shouldn't be a surprise. How are you NOT judging the church's motivations?

I'm not saying that it's not being done.  I'm questioning on what basis it was done in this instance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not saying that it's not being done.  I'm questioning on what basis it was done in this instance.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks.

I admit, even though I quoted you, most of my response was intended for Klindley who seems extremely offended by other people making judgements.

[kllindley]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is done all the time, on every side imaginable. It shouldn't be a surprise. How are you NOT judging the church's motivations?

On other threads like this one I've seen comments by devout LDS, former LDS, and disaffected LDS alike, which assign motive to the church's actions, especially with LGBT issues. For example, in many cases people will make a comment that it is a PR move. Are they wrong? Can we know for sure? Is it defamatory to claim it's a PR move? PR concerns is a motivation and one that seems to be agreed on by a variety of people on different sides.

Something like this donation can have a various motives assigned to it: 1- the church is simply supporting a good cause because its a good cause, (the question would then be, how did the church choose to donate to this good cause versus other good causes) 2- the church is supporting a good cause and hopes to receive some positive PR for it (is there anything wrong with that?), 3- the church is supporting a good cause because it loves and supports the LGBT community (I doubt many on either side think this is the case).

But the point is, we all judge motivations and those judgements aren't always mean spirited, nor are they always wrong.

But those judgments are subjective and not fact. 

I truly do believe #3. 

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I should clarify that the church's publicly stated reasons for what they did were at odds with the reasons they gave in private. That's what I mean by motivations.

In this case, or your one you reported earlier?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

In this case, or your one you reported earlier?

The one I was talking about. It would not surprise me at all if the church regularly gave differing justifications publicly than they do privately. Most organizations do exactly that.

[kllindley]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks.

I admit, even though I quoted you, most of my response was intended for Klindley who seems extremely offended by other people making judgements.

I'm sorry that it seems like I'm bothered by other people making judgments. I'm curious what specific comments I've made that have giving that impression. I don't have any problem with the fact that people make judgments. I do believe it is important to be clear about what is fact and what is judgment. 

EVERYBODY stop the finger pointing and stay on point or the thread will be closed.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Lets say you weren't a member today and you had were investigating the church and gained a testimony that it was true.  Would you be willing to join the LDS church if it required you to disavow you parents relationship?  

Yes I would disavow their relationship if it was against the doctrines of the church, but I would not disavow them as my parents; I would still love and honor them as such. 

I'm not sure how a person can truly honor someone without also honoring their relationship to their spouse.  In some ways I can see how it seems admirable to have this level of loyalty to an institution that you believe is favored by God.  But in other ways it shows the flaws of prioritizing loyalty to a humanly administered and changing institution over relationships as close as a parent/child relationship. 

For me, relationships win every time.  

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure how a person can truly honor someone without also honoring their relationship to their spouse.  In some ways I can see how it seems admirable to have this level of loyalty to an institution that you believe is favored by God.  But in other ways it shows the flaws of prioritizing loyalty to a humanly administered and changing institution over relationships as close as a parent/child relationship. 

For me, relationships win every time.  

I was living in Virginia when the policy change happened. One or two people at work knew I was LDS, but I never talked about it at work. When the news hit, I had at least 10 people come up and ask me how the church justified what they considered to be a policy totally at odds with the Christian gospel. I told them I disagreed with the policy, but I tried to explain the church's reasoning. Obviously, I probably didn't do a very good job of it, but it was interesting to me that the church was not on anyone's radar before that, and when it did happen, the reaction was overwhelmingly negative. That I think is the problem facing the church in the developed world: increasingly, potential converts will be so turned off by these policies that they won't consider joining the church. 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was living in Virginia when the policy change happened. One or two people at work knew I was LDS, but I never talked about it at work. When the news hit, I had at least 10 people come up and ask me how the church justified what they considered to be a policy totally at odds with the Christian gospel. I told them I disagreed with the policy, but I tried to explain the church's reasoning. Obviously, I probably didn't do a very good job of it, but it was interesting to me that the church was not on anyone's radar before that, and when it did happen, the reaction was overwhelmingly negative. That I think is the problem facing the church in the developed world: increasingly, potential converts will be so turned off by these policies that they won't consider joining the church. 

Wow, interesting.  I knew it got a lot of publicity here locally, but I had no idea it was that widely publicized outside of Utah.  Unfortunately, when it comes to certain issues, it seems like the LDS church has chosen the path of aligning with conservative evangelicals instead of more progressive Christians, or even charting their own path.  

I don't like how the LDS church continues to follow the broader societal trends on dominant social issues, but lags years behind the rest of the societal curve.  This has happened on numerous issues in the past, and continues to happen on the LGBT topic and other issues today.  I would love to see some more forward thinking from leaders, but I think we'll continue to get what we've gotten in the past with the leadership structure and traditions in place.  

Edited July 11, 2018 by hope_for_things

[JAHS]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure how a person can truly honor someone without also honoring their relationship to their spouse.  In some ways I can see how it seems admirable to have this level of loyalty to an institution that you believe is favored by God.  But in other ways it shows the flaws of prioritizing loyalty to a humanly administered and changing institution over relationships as close as a parent/child relationship. 

For me, relationships win every time.  

"I'm not sure how a person can truly honor someone without also honoring their relationship to their spouse."
I can still honor and love the individuals; what I don't honor is the practice of calling the relationship a marriage. 

"In some ways I can see how it seems admirable to have this level of loyalty to an institution that you believe is favored by God."
The difference is, I believe it is loyalty to God; not just a institution favored by God. When changes happen it will be by God's will at the right time, not when the people insist on the change happening. 
 

Edit to keep it on topic: I believe the church donating the money shows they are concerned about the issue and want to help prevent the suicides. Church leaders love the individuals involved and want to help, but they are not going to change God-inspired doctrines and policies just to please the secular world. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by JAHS

[kllindley]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure how a person can truly honor someone without also honoring their relationship to their spouse.  In some ways I can see how it seems admirable to have this level of loyalty to an institution that you believe is favored by God.  But in other ways it shows the flaws of prioritizing loyalty to a humanly administered and changing institution over relationships as close as a parent/child relationship. 

For me, relationships win every time.  

For me too.  And the relationship that matters most is my relationship with God.  I have to remain faithful to my experience of Him.  I can trust Him even when other people seem to try to convince me that I can't be correct about my experiences with Him.  

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, interesting.  I knew it got a lot of publicity here locally, but I had no idea it was that widely publicized outside of Utah.  Unfortunately, when it comes to certain issues, it seems like the LDS church has chosen the path of aligning with conservative evangelicals instead of more progressive Christians, or even charting their own path.  

The LDS Church aligns with other religious groups when their interests and viewpoints align.  That happens in some places, and not in others.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't like how the LDS church continues to follow the broader societal trends on dominant social issues,

Like extra-marital sex?

Abortion?

Marijuana?

Same-sex marriage?

The Church's positions on "social issues" arise from doctrines and revelation.  

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

but lags years behind the rest of the societal curve. 

Could you give some examples?

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This has happened on numerous issues in the past, and continues to happen on the LGBT topic and other issues today. 

I'm not sure that the "social issues" that the media deem "dominant" really are.  The Powers That Be get to select the narratives that they like.  Meanwhile, the Church proceeds on issues pertaining to its mandate.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would love to see some more forward thinking from leaders,

"Forward thinking" = "Sociopolitical Leftism."  Is that correct?

Lemme guess:

• Same-sex Marriage
• Priesthood Ordination of Woman
• Elective Abortions
• Dismantling of the Word of Wisdom
• Dismantling of the Law of Chastity
• "Climate Change" / AGW Activism
• "Animal Rights" Activism
• Disavowal of Exclusivistic Truth Claims (Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Priesthood Restoration, etc.)

Are these the sorts of things you have in mind?  I'm open to correction here.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

but I think we'll continue to get what we've gotten in the past with the leadership structure and traditions in place.  

Indeed.  Faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement.  Prayer.  Scripture study.  Temple attendance.  Sabbath Day observance.  Service to others.  Obedience to God.  Humility.  Hard work.  Education.  Self-reliance.  Focus on marriage and family.  Building up the Kingdom.

I'm glad the Church focuses on these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure how a person can truly honor someone without also honoring their relationship to their spouse. 

The same way a X could accommodate Ys non-marital relationship to Z.  If Y and Z have a loving and healthy relationship, but they are unmarried, then X can respect those good aspects of the relationship while not feeling obligated to endorse the inappropriate/immoral aspects of it.

Let me illustrate: Years ago I stopped by to visit my grandmother, who I found to be somewhat distressed.  She explained that another of her grandsons had stopped by earlier in the day, and that he had been intoxicated/stoned and reeked of marijuana and cigarettes.  She had asked him to leave her apartment and come back when he was sober and showered.  This grandson then became very upset and yelled at her, telling her that she should love him for who he was and not ask or expect him to change.  She had responded that she loved him, but that she was not obligated to agree with his personal decisions, or to allow him in her home when he was under the influence of narcotics.  The grandson, still angry, had stormed out.

What are your thoughts about this?  Are individuals allowed to express such views, in your mind?  Was my grandmother being an intolerant, hateful bigot in asking her grandson to not come to her house while intoxicated/stoned?  Or was she capable of "truly honor[ing]" her relationship with her grandson while still disagreeing with his personal decisions?

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

In some ways I can see how it seems admirable to have this level of loyalty to an institution that you believe is favored by God. 

That's secondary, really.  The loyalty we aspire to is loyalty to God.  The Church is His metaphorical "bride," and is the repository of the priesthood, the saving ordinances and doctrines, etc.  But in the end, we are to have faith in and devotion to God.

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But in other ways it shows the flaws of prioritizing loyalty to a humanly administered and changing institution over relationships as close as a parent/child relationship. 

For me, relationships win every time.  

Me, too.  But those relationships include God.

Moreover, the Church is heavily concerned about family relationships.  Part of the 2015 policy changes arose out of concern for the welfare of same-sex families.  The Church opted to have children being raised in such households to wait until they turn 18 before getting baptized.  Part of the reasoning for this was to mitigate conflict, confusion, etc. that could arise for minor children as between the Church's teachings and the parents' lifestyle.

Alas, our critics vilified us for that, too.  We're damned if we do, damned if we don't . . . ah, you know the rest.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The same way a X could accommodate Ys non-marital relationship to Z.  If Y and Z have a loving and healthy relationship, but they are unmarried, then X can respect those good aspects of the relationship while not feeling obligated to endorse the inappropriate/immoral aspects of it.

Let me illustrate: Years ago I stopped by to visit my grandmother, who I found to be somewhat distressed.  She explained that another of her grandsons had stopped by earlier in the day, and that he had been intoxicated/stoned and reeked of marijuana and cigarettes.  She had asked him to leave her apartment and come back when he was sober and showered.  This grandson then became very upset and yelled at her, telling her that she should love him for who he was and not ask or expect him to change.  She had responded that she loved him, but that she was not obligated to agree with his personal decisions, or to allow him in her home when he was under the influence of narcotics.  The grandson, still angry, had stormed out.

What are your thoughts about this?  Are individuals allowed to express such views, in your mind?  Was my grandmother being an intolerant, hateful bigot in asking her grandson to not come to her house while intoxicated/stoned?  Or was she capable of "truly honor[ing]" her relationship with her grandson while still disagreeing with his personal decisions?

That's secondary, really.  The loyalty we aspire to is loyalty to God.  The Church is His metaphorical "bride," and is the repository of the priesthood, the saving ordinances and doctrines, etc.  But in the end, we are to have faith in and devotion to God.

Me, too.  But those relationships include God.

Moreover, the Church is heavily concerned about family relationships.  Part of the 2015 policy changes arose out of concern for the welfare of same-sex families.  The Church opted to have children being raised in such households to wait until they turn 18 before getting baptized.  Part of the reasoning for this was to mitigate conflict, confusion, etc. that could arise for minor children as between the Church's teachings and the parents' lifestyle.

Alas, our critics vilified us for that, too.  We're damned if we do, damned if we don't . . . ah, you know the rest.

Thanks,

-Smac

You really think the church is being criticized for trying to mitigate family conflict?