Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

How about you stop inferring it, then?

See how that works?

We just demonstrated an important principle. Thank you.

Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

 

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, that is wrong as it may lead to them assuming they are isolated from others and real concern is just manipulation.

Please elaborate. I'm fascinated.

Link to post
Just now, USU78 said:

See how that works?

We just demonstrated an important principle. Thank you.

Show me where anyone here was even SUGGESTING the Church was acting with malice.  As John clearly stated - I believe most critics considered the policy ill-conceived, not malicious.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

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

You mean the school programs...no.  That is from older research and hopefully that research has impacted current programs, so I don't think we should assume every program is dangerous, but we should always be cautious and examine school programs against the current guidelines the professionals are putting out on how to best talk about suicide.

Because it is older material, it may take a bit for me to dig out.  "Suicide contagion" or"cluster suicides" topics often refer to these studies.

Some of the characteristics of news reporting can be applied to school programs (easier to find, still looking):

https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031539.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207262/

Edited by Calm
Link to post
Just now, ttribe said:

Show me where anyone here was even SUGGESTING the Church was acting with malice.  As John clearly stated - I believe most critics considered the policy ill-conceived, not malicious.

In both of the sister threads I've seen accusatory comments demonizing both positions and people and the Church's now late policy. If our beliefs, policies, and advocacy for our beliefs and policies cause suicides, and we know they do, then we, knowing those ends, intend those ends. And we are murderers.

You claim no one imputes malice, yet what could be more malicious?

And should we not be upset when we are accused of malice leading to actual deaths?

Link to post
1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Please elaborate. I'm fascinated.

I think it is pretty obvious.  Undermining feelings of support by making them question the sincerity of that whether support is from propolicy or antipolicy people is detrimental.  Studies have shown feeling supported lowers risks.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3
Link to post
3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

In both of the sister threads I've seen accusatory comments demonizing both positions and people and the Church's now late policy. If our beliefs, policies, and advocacy for our beliefs and policies cause suicides, and we know they do, then we, knowing those ends, intend those ends. And we are murderers.

You claim no one imputes malice, yet what could be more malicious?

And should we not be upset when we are accused of malice leading to actual deaths?

That's YOU inferring those things.  People, including members of the Church, are well within their rights to raise their hands in response to a new policy announcement and say - "Wait! This maybe isn't a good idea!  This could have REALLY bad consequences!" and not be saying ANYTHING about being malicious.  Moreover, people could also now be saying - "This was a HORRIBLE idea!  It had tragic UNINTENDED consequences (in the form of suicides)!  We are VERY happy this has come to an end!"

I think I was quite right about you living in a paranoid delusional world.

  • Like 1
Link to post
16 minutes ago, Calm said:

You mean the school programs...no.  That is from older research and hopefully that research has impacted current programs, so I don't think we should assume every program is dangerous, but we should always be cautious and examine school programs against the current guidelines the professionals are putting out on how to best talk about suicide.

Because it is older material, it may take a bit for me to dig out.  "Suicide contagion" or"cluster suicides" topics often refer to these studies.

Some of the characteristics of news reporting can be applied to school programs (easier to find, still looking):

https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031539.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207262/

Thanks for looking.  I recently gave a presentation on suicide to 100 high school students so it matters . I’m aware that when one suicide occurs, that we get concerned that others will follow but I had never heard anyone say or read that programs designed to educate kids on suicides were linked to or (or caused) increased numbers of suicides. 

 

Edited by MustardSeed
Link to post
1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

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

This looks like a useful evaluation of more current school efforts (a quick scan did not refer to being potentially detrimental, but did identify efforts that were not effective:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2992338/

Link to post
2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

For some reason I can’t follow the link

Copy and paste into your browser's address bar; it should work (I just tried it successfully).

Edited by ttribe
Link to post
2 hours ago, Nacho2dope said:

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?

I really don't think we are supposed to follow the fallible prophet in all things - we are supposed to follow Christ.  Prophets of old, and now, are imperfect.  We are all responsible for thinking for our self, and making informed decisions based on our own conscience and prayerful study above what any prophet may or may not say.  Certainly we listen to prophets - but we should follow our own conscience.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
35 minutes ago, Calm said:

You mean the school programs...no.  That is from older research and hopefully that research has impacted current programs, so I don't think we should assume every program is dangerous, but we should always be cautious and examine school programs against the current guidelines the professionals are putting out on how to best talk about suicide.

Because it is older material, it may take a bit for me to dig out.  "Suicide contagion" or"cluster suicides" topics often refer to these studies.

Some of the characteristics of news reporting can be applied to school programs (easier to find, still looking):

https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031539.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207262/

Calm, I understand your point on suicide contagion etc. it happens in all scenarios out there. Below is just one person out of many that committed suicide over the fall out stemming from the policy or years of statements coming from leaders that then bled into the members of the church, IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Mormon_suicides

Stockton Powers (2016) — After a suicide attempt in 2012, 17-year-old Stockton passed away from suicide in 2016. He reported in 2015 that many church members had stopped talking to him after he came out and excluded him from events, with even some mothers in his congregation stating they would not allow their sons to go to Scout camp if Stockton went.[85][86][87]

Me: And the below is a quote from the same website, isn't the church considered a program in speaking out about the problem as well?

"The church released a statement through spokesman Dale Jones on 28 January 2016 mourning the reported suicides of 32 LGBT Mormons. The release stated that leaders and members are taught to "reach out in an active, caring way to all, especially to youth who feel estranged or isolated."[12][20] On 9 February 2016 when apostle Dallin H. Oaks was asked about church leaders and members' responsibility for the treatment of LGBT individuals that may have precipitated in suicides he stated "that's a question that will be answered on judgment day" and that "nobody is sadder about a case like that than I am."[88] In June 2016 the church published its official Mental Health website[89] followed shortly in September 2016 by its official Preventing Suicide website.[90] In August 2017, the LDS Church supported the LoveLoud Festival, a concert event at Utah Valley Universityraising money for charities which support LGBTQ youth.[91] In April 2018, the LDS Church donated $150,000 to the state of Utah to aid in suicide prevention.[92] In July 2018, the LDS Church donated $25,000 to the LGBT advocacy group Affirmation: LGBT Mormons, Families & Friends to aid in worldwide suicide prevention training.[93]"

Link to post
41 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it is pretty obvious.  Undermining feelings of support by making them question the sincerity of that whether of those propolicy or antipolicy is detrimental.  Studies have shown feeling supportive lowers risks.

Wanted to make certain I hadn't missed anything. Thanks.

Link to post
38 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's YOU inferring those things.  People, including members of the Church, are well within their rights to raise their hands in response to a new policy announcement and say - "Wait! This maybe isn't a good idea!  This could have REALLY bad consequences!" and not be saying ANYTHING about being malicious.  Moreover, people could also now be saying - "This was a HORRIBLE idea!  It had tragic UNINTENDED consequences (in the form of suicides)!  We are VERY happy this has come to an end!"

I think I was quite right about you living in a paranoid delusional world.

If you advocate for proximate causation (especially when such advocacy is not and cannot be based in fact), you accuse unrighteously. It's really quite simple.

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

If you advocate for proximate causation (especially when such advocacy is not and cannot be based in fact), you accuse unrighteously. It's really quite simple.

No, it really isn't "quite simple" and waving your hands to make "unintended consequences" look like "malicious murderers" does not, in any reasonable set of circumstances, pass the smell test.

Link to post
58 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Thanks for looking.  I recently gave a presentation on suicide to 100 high school students so it matters . I’m aware that when one suicide occurs, that we get concerned that others will follow but I had never heard anyone say or read that programs designed to educate kids on suicides were linked to or (or caused) increased numbers of suicides. 

 

I will keep looking, hoping a friend will direct me to something useful.  It is really annoying to know that I was able to find something a few years ago, but now due to the sheer volume, with so much repetition of the same things that finding something older or less obvious is difficult.  (most often happens when looking for family history stories; websites might even be defunct, but there are so many new ones it takes me forever to wade through them)

Do you want anything else as long as I am looking, such as studies on what is effective and what isn't (most negative evaluation amounts to 'it's ineffective', rather than detrimental)?

Edited by Calm
Link to post
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Copy and paste into your browser's address bar; it should work (I just tried it successfully).

Since the latest major update, half the time I need to use the link option where before it was automatic.  If it is not in blue, I have forgotten to doublecheck.

http://https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2992338/

My friend says he will pass on the sources after he gets home from work.

Edited by Calm
Link to post

If you disagree with the new policy, thought the old policy was correct and or you think that God is just punishing us by giving us what we asked for, do you have the right and or obligation to respectfully advocate for the old policy to be brought back?

Edited by CA Steve
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am going to be blunt.  This kind of stuff (identifying individuals and turning them into essentially celebrities for committing suicide as well as attributing a single cause instead of treating it as a complex of behaviours and causes) is detrimental and more likely to contribute to suicide contagion than decrease it in spite of the love and hope that drives people to do this.

And when church leadership buys into it, it does not help any more than when others do.

Please refer to how to talk about suicide.  I think the media guidelines are highly appropriate on public venues like this.  For more personal  conversations, I have linked to sites before.  Look for well known, established health and suicide prevention organizations versions of "how to talk about suicide".

https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/June-2018/Why-Suicide-Reporting-Guidelines-Matter

https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Related-Conditions/Risk-of-Suicide

Brava!

Link to post

At the end of the link above:

Quote

Suicide is not a subject that should be avoided, but rather, handled carefully and thoughtfully—the way the suicide guidelines have clearly outlined. For those who believe the recommendations were created to prevent offensive language or spare people’s feelings, please keep in mind that their purpose is so much more than that. This is not a matter of being “politically correct.” It’s a matter of saving lives.

At this point in this thread, I really don't care about defending the Church's choices or anyone else's.  Some I get, others I don't, and still others I think are wrong as far as I can tell even if intentions were pure because they appear to me to be focused on the wrong thing.  

But if everyone here agrees that suicide is a horrible thing and we should avoid as much as possible carelessly contributing to it, having "unintended consequences", then why the hell isn't every one of the posters here studying the guidelines on how to talk about suicide and following them?

I wish the mods would lock every thread on suicide until more conscious effort to speak safely is shown.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

At the end of the link above:

At this point in this thread, I really don't care about defending the Church's choices or anyone else's.  Some I get, others I don't, and still others I think are wrong as far as I can tell even if intentions were pure because they appear to me to be focused on the wrong thing.  

But if everyone here agrees that suicide is a horrible thing and we should avoid as much as possible carelessly contributing to it, having "unintended consequences", then why the hell isn't every one of the posters here studying the guidelines on how to talk about suicide and following them?

I wish the mods would lock every thread on suicide until more conscious effort to speak safely is shown.

I don't know why it's not a bigger priority. I mean I have a cynical suspicion, but .  . . 

Link to post
Quote

Don't:

Glorify or romanticize suicide. Some can find attention and sympathy directed toward a victim of suicide to be appealing, so it is best to avoid making suicide seem like an attractive option.

Normalize suicide. Don't treat suicide as common or normal. People experiencing suicidal ideation need to know that this is a problem that warrants seeking help, and not normal.

[Don't] Attribute suicide to a single cause or treat it as inexplicable. Try not to cultivate the idea that suicide can be caused by a single incident, such as a breakup or stress, or that suicide is just something that happens. If people think a single incident can cause someone to attempt suicide, they may more readily consider suicide a viable option. Suicide is complex, but it is also preventable.

Focus on details. Getting into the details of a suicide can lead to people identifying with the lives of those lost to suicide, and to consider suicide themselves. Describing methods can also cause people to consider suicide by the same means.

Do:

Encourage help-seeking behavior. Suicide is preventable, as long as people know help is available. Let people know about the Suicide Lifeline (1-800-273-8255) and other local resources. Click here for resources.

Emphasize prevention. Suicide is preventable, and suicidal ideation is treatable. Promote resources and encourage people to use them.

Emphasize the effectiveness of treatment. Treatment exists, and it works. For every suicide death, 1000 people get help and get better.

Include warning signs of suicide and depression. Knowing the signs can help people to realize what they're experiencing isn't normal, and that they should reach out and seek treatment. 

Click here for warning signs of suicide.

Click here for risk factors and protective factors.

https://www.wichita.edu/student_life/wesupportu/Communication_Tips_about_Suicide.php

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...