President Nelson's Devotional: "The Love and Laws of God"

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

those that possibly lost loved ones to suicide over the policy.

And here we go again...

http://www.lgbtmap.org/file/talking-about-suicide-and-lgbt-populations.pdf

“The underlying causes of most suicide deaths are complex and not always immediately obvious. Making hasty assumptions about those causes, even when based on comments from family or friends or media reports, can result in statements that are later proven to be inaccurate. Don’t risk perpetuating false or misleading information by jumping to conclusions about the reasons for a particular suicide death. Also, directly attributing a suicide to bullying or another negative life event can increase contagion risk among vulnerable individuals who have similar experiences.

7. DON’T normalize suicide by presenting it as the logical consequence of the kinds of bullying, rejection, discrimination and exclusion that LGBT people often experience. Presenting suicide as the inexplicable act of an otherwise healthy LGBT person—or drawing a direct, causal link between suicide and the bullying or discrimi- nation that LGBT people often face—can encourage at- risk individuals to identify with the victim (or the victim’s life circumstances) and increase risk of suicidal behavior...

DON’T say that a specific policy (or its absence) will in and of itself “prevent suicide.””

 

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

And here we go again...

http://www.lgbtmap.org/file/talking-about-suicide-and-lgbt-populations.pdf

“The underlying causes of most suicide deaths are complex and not always immediately obvious. Making hasty assumptions about those causes, even when based on comments from family or friends or media reports, can result in statements that are later proven to be inaccurate. Don’t risk perpetuating false or misleading information by jumping to conclusions about the reasons for a particular suicide death. Also, directly attributing a suicide to bullying or another negative life event can increase contagion risk among vulnerable individuals who have similar experiences.

7. DON’T normalize suicide by presenting it as the logical consequence of the kinds of bullying, rejection, discrimination and exclusion that LGBT people often experience. Presenting suicide as the inexplicable act of an otherwise healthy LGBT person—or drawing a direct, causal link between suicide and the bullying or discrimi- nation that LGBT people often face—can encourage at- risk individuals to identify with the victim (or the victim’s life circumstances) and increase risk of suicidal behavior...

DON’T say that a specific policy (or its absence) will in and of itself “prevent suicide.””

 

Thanks for being so quick to respond to this, Calm.  

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Thanks for being so quick to respond to this, Calm.  

I think she must have it in a ready-reference file in her computer, she has to cite it so often. 

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

And here we go again...

http://www.lgbtmap.org/file/talking-about-suicide-and-lgbt-populations.pdf

“The underlying causes of most suicide deaths are complex and not always immediately obvious. Making hasty assumptions about those causes, even when based on comments from family or friends or media reports, can result in statements that are later proven to be inaccurate. Don’t risk perpetuating false or misleading information by jumping to conclusions about the reasons for a particular suicide death. Also, directly attributing a suicide to bullying or another negative life event can increase contagion risk among vulnerable individuals who have similar experiences.

7. DON’T normalize suicide by presenting it as the logical consequence of the kinds of bullying, rejection, discrimination and exclusion that LGBT people often experience. Presenting suicide as the inexplicable act of an otherwise healthy LGBT person—or drawing a direct, causal link between suicide and the bullying or discrimi- nation that LGBT people often face—can encourage at- risk individuals to identify with the victim (or the victim’s life circumstances) and increase risk of suicidal behavior...

DON’T say that a specific policy (or its absence) will in and of itself “prevent suicide.””

 

https://www.healthyplace.com/gender/glbt-mental-health/homosexuality-and-suicide-lgbt-suicide-a-serious-issue

I feel that one article doesn't necessarily need to be the one be all on the matter. As stated in the article I posted, discrimination or in other words..non allowed SSM or a policy that at one time meant you're in a state of apostasy, can have ramifications. Why can you post articles like yours and I can't post an article... my link says almost the opposite. Why is one better than the other? CFR that your article is the last word on the matter.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Tacenda

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

How about CFR that he got it right.  If he got it right, then how come they are walking it back three years later?  

Tacenda made a declaration as though it was fact. The burden is on her to back up her statement. 

If and when I make a statement of fact that you dispute, you are welcome to issue a CFR to me. Anyone who makes a statement of fact should have no issue with backing it up with credible proof, correct?

However, you will never find me calling President Nelson a liar. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

President Nelson is singing a slightly different tune than he was at the last BYU devotional when he unequivocally stated that the policy change was as a result of direct divine revelation to the living prophet. He’s now making it seem like it was driven more by their personal opinions as policy makers. 

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-09-17/president-nelson-byu-devotional-god-love-160666

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have continued to seek the Lord’s guidance and to plead with Him in behalf of His children who were affected by the 2015 policy.  We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us. Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep — for whatever reason — we weep.  So, our supplications to the Lord continued....

As a result of our continued supplication, we recently felt directed to adjust the policy such that the baptism of children of LGBT parents may be authorized by bishops without First Presidency approval, if the custodial parents request the baptism and understand that a child will be taught about sacred covenants to be made at baptism.

Looks like he is explaining it as additional inspiration, not personal opinion to me.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.healthyplace.com/gender/glbt-mental-health/homosexuality-and-suicide-lgbt-suicide-a-serious-issue

I feel that one article doesn't necessarily need to be the one be all on the matter. As stated in the article I posted, discrimination or in other words..non allowed SSM or a policy that at one time meant you're in a state of apostasy, can have ramifications. Why can you post articles like yours and I can't post an article... my link says almost the opposite. Why is one better than the other? CFR that your article is the last word on the matter.

Please quote where your link says there can be one cause for suicide, in this case the policy.

Quote

 feel that one article doesn't necessarily need to be the one be all on the matter.

Have you not paid attention to the multiple articles I have posted on this over the years?  This is the consensus of those who study suicide and the best ways to discuss it.  They have been saying this for years.  It is not a new thing, it has nothing to do with the Church policy or defending the Church.  It is about lowering risks of suicide (risks which means contributors, not sole causes).  The link I usually share is from a LGBT group, for goodness sake, GLAAD as well as other contributors like the Trevor Project, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and the National Coalition for LGBT Health, SAGE, PFLAG, Human Rights Campaign, and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.  It was not produced by some blogger expressing their opinion.

Add-on:  5 out of the 22 "need to know" LGBT groups participated in creation of that pamphlet.  This pamphlet is probably as authoritative as it gets on this topic.

https://www.diversitybestpractices.com/news-articles/22-lgbt-organizations-you-need-know

http://www.mooddisordersmanitoba.ca/resources/suicide/

Quote

The majority of people contemplating suicide are diagnosed with depression, however not all experience depression. Generally, suicide may not be attributed to one cause but several causes combined.

http://www.posttraumaticgrowth.com/index.php/kentucky-is-a-leader-in-suicide-focused-treatment/

Quote

What most suicidologists know is that it is not that easy to deconstruct such a final act to one cause. It’s usually a combination of factors that are unique to the individual that contribute to the death, and the treatment to address what is driving a suicidal person’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors must be as specific.

https://ilschoolcounselor.org/resources/Documents/halm.pdf

Quote

Suicide involves biological, interpersonal and social forces. There is no one reason someone dies by suicide and no “right” reaction to this news....

Do not simplify the reasons for suicide – suicide is a complicated, multi- dimensional manner of death. Try not to point to one cause or person as more or less significant in the deceased’s death. 

https://www.deseret.com/2019/5/7/20672662/guest-opinion-the-church-and-lgbt-youth-suicide-inaccurate-claims-may-do-more-harm-than-good

Includes multiple references:

Quote

We applaud those raising awareness of suicidality among LGBTQ youths and adults. Their work is not just important, it’s lifesaving. In our efforts to help, however, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reminds us that certain ways we discuss suicide can do more harm than good. They explain: “Suicide is the result of many complex factors; therefore media coverage should not report oversimplified explanations such as recent negative life events or acute stressors.”

Even more specific, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention in conjunction with the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays state that, “when individuals and organizations talk about suicide safely and accurately, they can help reduce the likelihood of its occurrence; however, talking about suicide in inaccurate or exaggerated ways can elevate that risk in vulnerable individuals.”

They recommend avoiding speculating “about reasons for a suicide death” or using “social media or e-blasts to announce news of suicide deaths.” The guidelines warn against attributing “a suicide death to a single factor (such as bullying or discrimination) or say(ing) that a specific anti-LGBT law or policy will ‘cause’ suicide.”

To be clear, talking about suicide is critical to intervention and these groups are not suggesting anti-LGBTQ laws should not be addressed. We are heartened to see, in recent years, Utah expand the legal infrastructure to help address discrimination or hate crimes experienced by LGBTQ individuals.

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Calm

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

God can change His mind on some things if His children are not ready to accept something in its initial form. 
"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good;"  (D&C 56: 4)
This is not a divine law of God which is always true; it's just a policy which can change as needed.

 

I guess we all have our opinions.  I believe that God, who a 1000 years ago had Nephi prepare the small plates because knew ahead of time that JS would lose the 116 pages, also has the foresight to not give a revelation that would have to be walked back in three years.  My opinion is that it is Elder Nelson who misstepped, not God.  After all we supposedly believe that our leaders are fallible.  Don't we?

Edited September 18, 2019 by sunstoned

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

QFT.  The original "policy" (which was later promoted to a "revelation") was in direct violation of our Savior's teachings.  It was a big mistake.  It was a big mistake that thankfully was reversed three years later.   It is clear it wasn't a revelation, so why can't the leaders acknowledge they acted too quickly and made a mistake, like all of us do.  It is doubtful that anyone would think less of them for admitting they are human.  Something every thinking adult already knows.

I am not sure you know what the phrase “direct violation” means. As far as I am aware the Savior did not in mortality or through any revelation since mandate specifically that the children of those who enter into a same gender marital relationship should receive baptism and that is pretty much what is required for making this a direct violation.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, Pres. Oaks said they don't apologize. And maybe if they did, there would be more lawsuits for those that possibly lost loved ones to suicide over the policy.

Let us all have a moment of silence for the hypothetical people who may have taken their own lives because of a marginal change to a church policy. True, said policy did not change the perceived sinfulness that may have driven these imagined victims to this act but it may have been noticed and been the straw that broke the camel’s back. True, it is statistically unlikely but possible so let us mourn these improbable to exist victims this day.

Next on the agenda, a moment of silence for those who may have died due to complications from being abducted by aliens and exposed to strange unearthly radiation. It is unlikely that there are any but let us have a moment of silence for these potential...........

[Calm]

Quote

not every LGBT person attempts suicide – most don't – but those that do often do so because of the stress of anti-gay stigma, discrimination and harassment. This type of stress is known as "minority stress" as it is exerted on minority populations. In the LGBT population, more than 75% of people in a community setting reported suffering verbal harassment while one-in-seven reported physical attacks.

From Tacenda's link...

The author is basically contradicting themselves here because first there is acknowledgement that most LGBT don't suicide, either completed or incompleted, but then when it happens it is attributed to often being caused by "minority stress".  If that was the sole cause in those cases, then why aren't the numbers higher...more than 75% are verbally harassed and 14% are assaulted.  Yet there are those who experience high levels of minority stress, yet do not initiate suicide and others at lower levels who do.  There must be other factors/causes contributing to suicide.  Ignoring the rest to focus on minority stress isn't going to prevent the majority of LGBT suicide, I suspect, because when it comes to health issues, global approaches are needed.  Minority stress may be a significant contributor, but it is not the only one or likely the primary one.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Calm

[rchorse]

I haven't read through the whole thread, so maybe this has been covered. My experience is that God reveals general principles and not the intricate details of how things should be implemented. In this case, I believe that God revealed that precautions needed to be taken with baptizing children coming from households with parents in a same-sex marriage. The principle was to protect children from conflicts between family and church. The details of the best way to do this came from the leadership of the church (imperfect men). Hence the need for ongoing refinement of the policies.

God has never revealed a step-by-step action plan to me in my life. What He has done is reveal a need to take action or make improvements and then leave the implementation up to me. When I get details of the implementation wrong, He has given me further light to make corrections. That doesn't mean there was no revelation to begin with. What it means is that revelation is not like getting an email detailing all the exact steps that should be taking and the exact wording that should be used. I suppose sometimes it can be, but I think that kind of revelation is rare.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Let us all have a moment of silence for the hypothetical people who may have taken their own lives because of a marginal change to a church policy. True, said policy did not change the perceived sinfulness that may have driven these imagined victims to this act but it may have been noticed and been the straw that broke the camel’s back. True, it is statistically unlikely but possible so let us mourn these improbable to exist victims this day.

Next on the agenda, a moment of silence for those who may have died due to complications from being abducted by aliens and exposed to strange unearthly radiation. It is unlikely that there are any but let us have a moment of silence for these potential...........

Suicides actually in Utah dropped the year following the policy iirc.  I will go track down the article that has the stats.

https://www.deseret.com/2019/5/7/20672662/guest-opinion-the-church-and-lgbt-youth-suicide-inaccurate-claims-may-do-more-harm-than-good

Quote

It has been further speculated that The Church of Jesus Christ’s 2015 policy regarding LGBTQ families and baptism was responsible for a continuing increase in adolescent suicide in Utah. However, as has been noted, Utah youth suicides actually dropped by 20% the year after the policy was announced. In 2017, youth suicides in Utah once again began to increase. But the available data does not support the narrative that in Utah a dramatic increase in LGBTQ youth suicides followed the church’s 2015 policy.

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rchorse said:

I haven't read through the whole thread, so maybe this has been covered. My experience is that God reveals general principles and not the intricate details of how things should be implemented. In this case, I believe that God revealed that precautions needed to be taken with baptizing children coming from households with parents in a same-sex marriage. The principle was to protect children from conflicts between family and church. The details of the best way to do this came from the leadership of the church (imperfect men). Hence the need for ongoing refinement of the policies.

God has never revealed a step-by-step action plan to me in my life. What He has done is reveal a need to take action or make improvements and then leave the implementation up to me. When I get details of the implementation wrong, He has given me further light to make corrections. That doesn't mean there was no revelation to begin with. What it means is that revelation is not like getting an email detailing all the exact steps that should be taking and the exact wording that should be used. I suppose sometimes it can be, but I think that kind of revelation is rare.

The timeline of sealing families together would indicate that your perception of how God provides revelation can be the same for church leadership.  Originally the doctrine of sealings is revealed (Sec 132).  Besides sealing couples in marriage, they begin to create family lines by sealing men (and women iirc) to the prophets and other church leaders.  Older individuals were even be sealed as children to younger men (and I assume their wives) as their "parent".  Years later, because a prophet felt the Law of Adoption sealing wasn't the best way we should be creating eternal families connected to God, he sought and God sent clarification we were to be sealed to our own parents, biological or adoptive (civilly). 

-----

I believe what God wanted was for leaders and members to understand the importance of having supportive parents who would agree to their children being taught the Gospel not only at church, but by ministers coming into their home before having the child make covenants or even be placed under the stewardship of the Church by receiving a naming blessing.  I suspect it likely the sense of great importance was what God revealed (possibly focusing on children with gay parents because we are in the midst of significant social change in regards to these families, but possibly he wants this to occur for all families)....we need to take this more serious as a community.  I believe the First Presidency at the time saw this as a need to have direct involvement in the approval process for children.  As the three years past and they grew in experience of interacting with many of these families, including those with parents willing to sincerely commit themselves to being supportive (and therefore their children's ordinances were approved) and continued to seek God's guidance on the matter, God let them see that local leaders could serve in this capacity without decreasing the sense of importance in the majority of cases.  So they moved the approval process back to fully local.

For those who claim it just reverted, that ignores imo all the additional history and baggage that occurred during those three years that will influence behaviour in new ways.  Leaders are therefore likely now to have different perceptions of how they should judge and what needs to be done to prepare for stewardship of the children.  They are, imo, more likely to see themselves as agents of the First Presidency, for example, since this is a job the First Presidency was doing they have now directly delegated to bishops.  Where before local leaders most likely approached it from what I saw and heard when baptism was sought as "why shouldn't we baptize this child?" (assumption was baptism would take place unless there are extraordinary conditions impeding the child's membership) to "why should we baptize this child" (default position is no baptism until support system is in place).  The first is a passive approach, less likely to supply the child with what they need.  The second is an active approach, requirements of support from both parents and church members are explored prior to baptism, not just assumed they will be there when the time comes.  I will be interested to see if the updated instructions support my speculation.

My fond hope is treating baptism more carefully in this one case will bleed over to a greater respect and caution for baptisms of all children.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Calm

[rchorse]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The timeline of sealing families together would indicate that your perception of how God provides revelation can be the same for church leadership.  Originally the doctrine of sealings is revealed (Sec 132).  Besides sealing couples in marriage, they begin to create family lines by sealing men (and women iirc) to the prophets and other church leaders.  Older individuals were even be sealed as children to younger men (and I assume their wives) as their "parent".  Years later, because a prophet felt the Law of Adoption sealing wasn't the best way we should be creating eternal families connected to God, he sought and God sent clarification we were to be sealed to our own parents, biological or adoptive (civilly). 

This is a perfect example of what I'm referring to. Thank you.

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

God can change His mind on some things if His children are not ready to accept something in its initial form. 
"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good;"  (D&C 56: 4)
This is not a divine law of God which is always true; it's just a policy which can change as needed.

Agreed.

10 hours ago, JAHS said:

Doctrine and Covenants 56: 4 says, "Wherefore I, the Lord command and revoke, as it seemeth me good"

I wish we'd quit quoting half this verse as explanation or excuse.  The principle of God revoking commands is scriptural, but not without consequences.

If the revocation comes because of the acts of the wicked:

D&C 56:4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord

If the revocation comes because of our disobedience:

D&C 58:32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

Basically, yes God can revoke his commands, but we should be very concerned when he has to.

[JAHS]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I guess we all have our opinions.  I believe that God, who a 1000 years ago had Nephi prepare the small plates because knew ahead of time that JS would lose the 116 pages, also has the foresight to not give a revelation that would have to be walked back in three years.  My opinion is that it is Elder Nelson who misstepped, not God.  After all we supposedly believe that our leaders are fallible.  Don't we?

We believe they are not infallible, but we do our best to give them the benefit of the doubt and follow them whether we agree with them or not and have faith that they will not do or say something that will jeopardize our salvation. If people keeps emphasizing how fallible they are, what they say will hold less importance for more people and they will tend to disregard what the prophets are saying to us. The agency of man has been the reason for many changes in the policies and programs of the church and according to the changing needs of the church.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

QFT.  The original "policy" (which was later promoted to a "revelation") was in direct violation of our Savior's teachings.  It was a big mistake.  It was a big mistake that thankfully was reversed three years later.   It is clear it wasn't a revelation, so why can't the leaders acknowledge they acted too quickly and made a mistake, like all of us do.  It is doubtful that anyone would think less of them for admitting they are human.  Something every thinking adult already knows.

Just wanted to clarify that I don't believe the original policy was a violation of the Savior's teachings but I am grateful that it's much easier and more simple now for children of LGBTQ parents to be blessed and baptized.  I think the change was a good thing.

[bluebell]

Pres. Nelson's address is now available to read in full, for those who weren't able to watch it yesterday.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-09-17/president-nelson-byu-devotional-god-love-160666?fbclid=IwAR3_xwot7KLjLQkEXTBnGGO0dpVfau43lHwYb3fbd80EKQ5izAo6Gv9tF2o

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

And here we go again...

http://www.lgbtmap.org/file/talking-about-suicide-and-lgbt-populations.pdf

“The underlying causes of most suicide deaths are complex and not always immediately obvious. Making hasty assumptions about those causes, even when based on comments from family or friends or media reports, can result in statements that are later proven to be inaccurate. Don’t risk perpetuating false or misleading information by jumping to conclusions about the reasons for a particular suicide death. Also, directly attributing a suicide to bullying or another negative life event can increase contagion risk among vulnerable individuals who have similar experiences.

7. DON’T normalize suicide by presenting it as the logical consequence of the kinds of bullying, rejection, discrimination and exclusion that LGBT people often experience. Presenting suicide as the inexplicable act of an otherwise healthy LGBT person—or drawing a direct, causal link between suicide and the bullying or discrimi- nation that LGBT people often face—can encourage at- risk individuals to identify with the victim (or the victim’s life circumstances) and increase risk of suicidal behavior...

DON’T say that a specific policy (or its absence) will in and of itself “prevent suicide.””

 

Kind of a weird piece.  There is no single factor that leads to someone's suicide, and don't oversimplify it.  If you do then you will obviously contribute to people's suicide because of suicide contagion--an oversimplified, single factor that causes suicide.  

I mean there are definitely some good ideas in there, but overall it's a contradicting piece.

I'm not commenting on Mormon LGBT suicides here, nor saying the policy change caused anyone's.  I wouldn't doubt it the treatment Mormon LGBT people have received from Church members and family, or the teachings of the Church has been a factor in some people's suicide.  

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, JAHS said:

He defined the truths that prophets always teach as being the divine laws of God which are always true. Policies are not divine laws of God and therefore can change. 

Here's what he said:  "We may not always tell people what they want to hear. Prophets are rarely popular. But we will always teach the truth!"

That does not say "truths that prophets always teach as being the divine laws of God" per se.  It suggests whenever a prophets teaches something it is true.  It excludes the possibility that a prophet could teach something that is not true.  

It seemed to be the whole point of his speech to these youngsters.  He wanted to address for them the contradiction that arose from the policy being implemented by revelation, then afterward it needing heavy revision.  Then a short time later it was rescinded, via none other than revelation.  It brings in the question of does God know what he's doing?  Or do men who are fallible in our estimation, mistake their impressions as if they are always coming from God.  Nelson ends up explaining, it seems to me, that the problem, fi anyone perceives it as such, is all God's doing.  

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

because of suicide contagion--an oversimplified, single factor that causes suicide.  

No, that is not an accurate representation of how they discuss it.  They are talking about increasing risks, not single causes.  "Suicide contagion risk" is just one factor of many given (and they don't cover all of them as they are focusing on how to discuss suicide, not discussing risk factors except as related to the topic).

 Having multiple risk factors increases vulnerabity.  Singling out one factor to the exclusion of others runs the risk of normalizing suicide for those who experience that factor, thus increasing vulnerability.  Discussing factors in the context of other factors, such as minority stress, drug use, history of mental illness, easy access to lethal methods among many others is important to ensure realistic and effective understanding and solution seeking.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Here's what he said:  "We may not always tell people what they want to hear. Prophets are rarely popular. But we will always teach the truth!"

This statement clearly needs clarifying.  There are demonstrably false teachings from prophets.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This statement clearly needs clarifying.  There are demonstrably false teachings from prophets.

How would you clarify it?

[stemelbow]

Just now, Calm said:

Not really.  They are talking about increasing risks, not single causes.

that's why it's such a funny self-contradictory piece.  What is the risk of suicide they are speaking against?  Suicide contagion.  from the piece:

Quote

Research has shown a link between certain kinds of public visibility and media coverage about suicide, and increases in suicide deaths--a phenomenon known as suicide contagion. Suicide contagion is most likely to occur among persons who are already seriously depressed or contemplating suicide. 

From what I gather, suicide contagion may, at least in some cases, be a factor in the complex set of causes for suicide.  saying this phenomenon increases suicide deaths defines it as a cause.   But, they say, as per bullying:

Quote

The relationship between bullying and suicide is complex. Research indicates that persistent bullying can lead to or worsen feelings of isolation, rejection, exclusion and despair, as well as to depression and anxiety, which can contribute to suicidal behavior. 

The piece is suggesting that bullying can't be a single cause for suicide because a lot of LGBT people are bullied and don't commit suicide. 

Quote

 it is also important to note that the large majority of people who experience bullying do not become suicidal. Suggesting that suicide is a natural response to bullying can lead media to emphasize details that could increase contagion risk. 

So, would they then say that suicide is a natural response to suicide contagion?  Bullying seems like a clear cause for some suicides--because it can worsen feelings of isolation, rejection, exclusion and despair.  But do we know what is a higher risk for suicide?  Bullying or suicide contagion?   Who knows.  They are just simply cautioning against one oversimplified single factor, while at the same time complaining it's a mistake to say that there is one oversimplified single factor.  And yet no one is saying there is one oversimplified single factor.