Jump to content

Were Those Members Who Opposed The 2015 Policy Right To Do So?


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, DispensatorMysteriorum said:

In response to the question of your post:

 

No.

Why?  Do you believe we always have to agree with our leaders?

This was not a commandment or doctrine, it was a policy.  One that was easily reversed.

  • Like 2
Link to post
19 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Where do you fall?

I was opposed to the policy and wrote a letter that I passed up the hierarchy and I know it at least reached Area Authority level.  The policy clearly violated core moral values and was impossible to logically justify with any integrity.  

I suspect what happened was an overreaction by church leaders worried about current events and having lost the battle for public policy and opinion on the subject of same sex marriage, they responded by implementing this discriminatory policy.  The moment this went public it became absolutely clear that this was a horrible decision from a PR perspective and the church was put into a cringeworthy position to try and justify the policy.  

Some leaders in the church felt like they couldn’t back down from the policy because they would lose points around their perception of authority so they doubled down on the policy as revelation communicated through Nelson’s talk.  This  doubling down made it so the church effectively had to maintain the policy and couldn’t make any significant changes even though they continued to have regular PR fallout and member disaffection.  

They have jettisoned the most egregious elements of the policy now some 3.5 years after this major blunder started.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
14 hours ago, changed said:

Just saw this new thread - will post this here:

 

 

sam2.JPG

Thanks for posting. This post gave me some thoughts. So in this situation who followed the prophet? When the policy was changed in November and all those who complained, did they not follow the Prophet? Or they did because now the policy was changed? Did those who didn’t speak out in November follow the Prophet and now they are not if they don’t understand the policy change?

Link to post
11 hours ago, ttribe said:

But, do you want to be the source of the thing that pushes someone over the edge?

Of course not, but if I rely on anecdotal info I may inadvertently do the thing that does push thinking I am not, such as can happen with suicide contagion where schools in the past running suicide prevention programs actually had more suicides rather than less, most likely because of normalizing the idea of suicide.  In essence telling LGBT teens that it is normal for them to feel despair or anger because of the policy, telling them how they should feel about it, that it may be what might push them over the edge...that may be what is the source, not the policy itself.  Hopefully neither is significant, but if we don’t know the cause, there is enough history and research out there that suggests it (labeling the policy as contributing to suicide) may be a contributor that we should avoid it imo until we know more.  Speculation about causes without strong foundation is not wise.

Given Michael Staley’s caution to not expect a connection to the Church with Utah teen suicides (“there’s no data to show that, period”) I think people should be very, very cautious in how they talk about the Church triggering suicides to avoid the very thing they are hoping to prevent.

https://qsaltlake.com/news/2018/12/06/utah-research-on-faith-related-suicide/

Edited by Calm
  • Like 4
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Of course not, but if I rely on anecdotal info I may inadvertently do the thing that does push thinking I am not, such as can happen with suicide contagion where schools running suicide prevention programs actually had more suicides rather than less, most likely because of normalizing the idea of suicide.  In essence telling LGBT teens that it is normal for them to feel despair or anger because of the policy, telling them how they should feel about it, that it may be what might push them over the edge...that may be what is the source, not the policy itself.  Hopefully neither is significant, but if we don’t know the cause, there is enough history and research out there that suggests it (labeling the policy as contributing to suicide) may be a contributor that we should avoid it imo until we know more.  Speculation about causes without strong foundation is not wise.

Given Michael Staley’s caution to not expect a connection to the Church with Utah teen suicides (“there’s no data to show that, period”) I think people should be very, very cautious in how they talk about the Church triggering suicides to avoid the very thing they are hoping to prevent.

https://qsaltlake.com/news/2018/12/06/utah-research-on-faith-related-suicide/

Exactly. Where you and I part company is that you presume unintended consequences and I see intentionality. What's a few suicides if you can score cheap points against the Church?

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Of course not, but if I rely on anecdotal info I may inadvertently do the thing that does push thinking I am not, such as can happen with suicide contagion where schools running suicide prevention programs actually had more suicides rather than less, most likely because of normalizing the idea of suicide.  In essence telling LGBT teens that it is normal for them to feel despair or anger because of the policy, telling them how they should feel about it, that it may be what might push them over the edge...that may be what is the source, not the policy itself.  Hopefully neither is significant, but if we don’t know the cause, there is enough history and research out there that suggests it (labeling the policy as contributing to suicide) may be a contributor that we should avoid it imo until we know more.  Speculation about causes without strong foundation is not wise.

Given Michael Staley’s caution to not expect a connection to the Church with Utah teen suicides (“there’s no data to show that, period”) I think people should be very, very cautious in how they talk about the Church triggering suicides to avoid the very thing they are hoping to prevent.

https://qsaltlake.com/news/2018/12/06/utah-research-on-faith-related-suicide/

Does the source you list provide cfr for your claim that programs normalize and increase suicides? I’m very interested to get my hands on this research, genuinely.  I’m involved in a way and certainly would need to know- thanks

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Do you know this for surety??? 

He's wrong.  I personally know of some who committed suicide (or have family members who did) after this policy was announced.  It was the final nail for some who are gay and who are believing members of the church.  They lost hope.

  • Like 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

What's a few suicides if you can score cheap points against the Church?

Wow.

Maybe you should ask that question of the family members who lost someone they love to suicide.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2
Link to post
12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Exactly. Where you and I part company is that you presume unintended consequences and I see intentionality. What's a few suicides if you can score cheap points against the Church?

What kind of paranoid delusional world do you live in?  Your suggestion is absolutely disgusting.

  • Like 3
Link to post
13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Exactly. Where you and I part company is that you presume unintended consequences and I see intentionality. What's a few suicides if you can score cheap points against the Church?

Amazing....

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow.

Maybe you should ask that question of the family members who lost someone they love to suicide.

You think I need to look very far? Your presumption is offensive.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Amazing....

Are we friends?

Link to post
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yeah....I am the one being offensive here....

Guenivere: "Oh, the insensitivity of sensitive men!"

You can dish dirt, accuse others of murder, yet wilt in the face of a little bluntness.

I find your position both pathetic and dangerous. As Calm stated with charm and tact, presumptions of Mormon malice  actually cause feelings of self revulsion among at risk youth. It also reinforces and strengthens antipatental resentments. Scant surprise that the suicides, with their last breath, strike out at mom and dad.

The antimormon malice sweeping this and the sister thread is grossly vile.

  • Like 2
Link to post
3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Guenivere: "Oh, the insensitivity of sensitive men!"

You can dish dirt, accuse others of murder, yet wilt in the face of a little bluntness.

I find your position both pathetic and dangerous. As Calm stated with charm and tact, presumptions of Mormon malice  actually cause feelings of self revulsion among at risk youth. It also reinforces and strengthens antipatental resentments. Scant surprise that the suicides, with their last breath, strike out at mom and dad.

The antimormon malice sweeping this and the sister thread is grossly vile.

Wow.  Your anger is ugly, IMO.  You may need to step back, take a chill pill and then repent and return....lol....

What you have posted above has so much wrong with it, I don't know where to begin.  So I'll leave you to wallow in your bitterness and anger, I guess....

I am sorry this appears to have really upset you and I hope you can eventually see this announcement as a positive step in the right direction.  I sincerely mean that too...

Edited by ALarson
Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

Wow.  Your anger is ugly, IMO.  You may need to step back, take a chill pill and then repent and return....lol....

What you have posted above has so much wrong with it, I don't know where to begin.  So I'll leave you to wallow in your bitterness and anger, I guess....

Or ... you might answer a question: Are we friends?

Link to post
Just now, USU78 said:

Or ... you might answer a question: Are we friends?

You keep asking that.  Is this your way of avoiding answering real or difficult questions asked of you?  It appears to me you're using it as a deflection.

If not...what is your purpose in asking this over and over again?  

Link to post
1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Guenivere: "Oh, the insensitivity of sensitive men!"

You can dish dirt, accuse others of murder, yet wilt in the face of a little bluntness.

I find your position both pathetic and dangerous. As Calm stated with charm and tact, presumptions of Mormon malice  actually cause feelings of self revulsion among at risk youth. It also reinforces and strengthens antipatental resentments. Scant surprise that the suicides, with their last breath, strike out at mom and dad.

The antimormon malice sweeping this and the sister thread is grossly vile.

As is the assumption that those of us who were disturbed by the policy were so consumed with anti-Mormon hatred that we encouraged and applauded youth suicide. Anything to get that damned church, right? 

It should go without saying that one could find the policy appalling without assuming malice on the part of those who came up with it in the first place. Many of us simply thought it ill-considered and poorly implemented, however well-intentioned. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
20 hours ago, CA Steve said:

One aspect I think is interesting and deserves its own thread is the question about why this change came about. [...]

Where do you fall?

There is a verse in the D&C where the Savior instructs us to "be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine." And in the Book of Moses "the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind."

The older I get, the more I see the importance of this theme - that God desires us to be united - throughout the scriptures. So much so, that I think there are perhaps even times where it is more important to be united than it is to be right.

I don't think it was wrong for members to disagree with the policy. But some of what I saw from those who opposed the policy went well past the line of mere disagreement. And that, I don't think, is a good thing - regardless of how things wind up in the end. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As is the assumption that those of us who were disturbed by the policy were so consumed with anti-Mormon hatred that we encouraged and applauded youth suicide. Anything to get that damned church, right? 

It should go without saying that one could find the policy appalling without assuming malice on the part of those who came up with it in the first place. Many of us simply thought it ill-considered and poorly implemented, however well-intentioned. 

That's fair, other than the hyperbolic "appalling." Nothing appalling about it. What I cannot respect is finding intentional causation of selbstmord.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

That's fair, other than the hyperbolic "appalling." Nothing appalling about it. What I cannot respect is finding intentional causation of selbstmord.

How about you stop inferring it, then?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Just now, USU78 said:

That's fair, other than the hyperbolic "appalling." Nothing appalling about it. What I cannot respect is finding intentional causation of selbstmord.

I'm just saying a lot of people thought it was appalling. I remember having a conversation with Calm in which she helped me understand that it was important to be careful in what I said about the policy, lest I inadvertently encourage despair in someone. I took that to heart, and I'm glad she increased my awareness. But that's a far cry from the notion that people on either side were actively encouraging suicide.

I know how I would have felt had I still been a believing member when the policy came out. I'd already been in and out of despair over my sexual orientation for years, and with my history of depression, the policy might have made things much worse for me. Does that mean I think there was malice behind the policy or its critics? 

  • Like 3
Link to post

 

58 minutes ago, USU78 said:

 What's a few suicides if you can score cheap points against the Church?

I see these types of comments as likely as dangerous as attributing cause without solid foundation.  Telling kids they aren't actually cared for by those voicing concern or the care is trivial in comparison to hate for the Church, that is wrong as it may lead to them assuming they are isolated from others and real concern is just manipulation.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...