Mormons and Suicide

[_Trevor]

I like the way you change your story. I think you probably know that a 17 year old is quite different than an 18 year old in this culture. 17 means while in high school, or dropped out. 18 means graduated from high school. 19 for women means graduated from high school, living away from home, going to school, working. And the national averge of 22 is hardly a child.

You just don't know when to stop, do you charity? You have been caught making a number of stupid statements on this thread. You have never adequately defended one of your misrepresentations. You have misattributed statements to me, and now you have the nerve to come back here and quibble because I didn't use the number 17 in my last post? Like this is some kind of "Aha! Gotcha" moment? You know, I used to get pretty irked with Kevin for calling you an idiot, and, although I don't particularly like that tack, I am beginning to understand why he has lost his patience with you. Mine is growing thin too.

You have been caught being sloppy, charity, and misunderstanding or misrepresenting the meaning of statistics. That's all this is. Let go of it.

And of course, you forgot to mention that 21 year old males in LDS culture are a lot different than 21 year old males in the culture at large. A returned misisonary has been out "in the world." Many of them in foreign countries. Away from home in a sense that most other males don't experience. Only letters from family in 2 years. No running home to mom when the McD job ran out. The missionary has to learn how to survive with a roomate that he can't just chug down the hall to get away from. And 2 years of serving other people, putting away his own selfish interests. That is pretty maturing. And of course, the average age of marriage is 3 years after getting back.

This, of course, is debatable. I would say that in some ways, and not just negative ways, it is the LDS missionary who is less mature.

Hardly the 17 year olds in the chapel marriage you suggested.

Strawman, strawman, strawman. Charity, people really aren't so stupid as you apparently take them to be. They aren't sitting back and saying, "nice one, charity, you really showed him!" Or, "that Trevor thought he could say that all of our young LDS marrieds are seventeen years old! Good on you for stopping this travesty, charity!" All you have done here is misrepresent my position by excluding the fact that I mentioned that there were some teenagers, even as young as 17, who were getting married in LDS chapels by bishops. I would say that given the statistics, this is a fair assumption. If you say otherwise, you are being unreasonably stubborn.

What is so bad, anyway, about two kids getting married? You act as though this were the end of the world, and so now you have to pretend as though it is not happening. I wouldn't call it ideal, but maybe for some people it is better than single motherhood, abortion, or a young man who loves a girl, conceives with her, and leaves in fear. People need to make their own choices, and sometimes marrying young is not the worst decision to make.

Finally, just because I chime in on a thread started by someone you dislike, and then point out what I see as your mistake, does not mean I am invested in everything the other person contended. You may like to imagine your dramatic role as the lone wolf fighting a united front, but that is not necessarily the case. I don't have to agree with Scratch 100% to disagree with your use of evidence. When I was a TBM, I would have taken you to task for misusing information. I should think you would like to know when your arguments are flawed. Instead you plow on as though you have me on the run. What a hoot!

[_charity]

I don't know why you can't see the "dial it up a notch" that your post did. Scratch says 18-19 year olds lined up in front of the temple. You then jump in with 17 year olds in chapels.

Oh, and by the way. The Church recommends that young, unmarried teenagers who become pregnant place the child with a mature adoptive family.

[_Trevor]

I don't know why you can't see the "dial it up a notch" that your post did. Scratch says 18-19 year olds lined up in front of the temple. You then jump in with 17 year olds in chapels.

Oh, and by the way. The Church recommends that young, unmarried teenagers who become pregnant place the child with a mature adoptive family.

Because it happens, charity. I have seen it happen more than once. Your statistics allow for the possibility that it does happen, and in fact suggest that it likely does happen. And, yes, the Church does recommend adoption, but there is also a pattern of getting the kids together to get married. Are they trying to move away from it? I would say yes, but there are probably almost as many backwards steps as forward progress, as there is with the issue of gay LDS people.

But I can see that my statement obviously upset you. On reflection, this was not the most measured way to wade into the thread. Sorry for yanking your chain.

[_Zoidberg]

No running home to mom when the McD job ran out.

No. No McD job. Instead of at least partialy providing for himself, he is entirely supported by his parents, as a rule (well, by whatever the Church sees fit to give him out of his parents' money). All the decisions are made for him. The stateside missionaries don't even have to cook for themselves, and the foreign missionaries had maids to do the cooking and laundry for them until the recent rule changes.

Fostering maturity indeed.

[_Trevor]

No. No McD job. Instead of at least partialy providing for himself, he is entirely supported by his parents, as a rule (well, by whatever the Church sees fit to give him out of his parents' money). All the decisions are made for him. The stateside missionaries don't even have to cook for themselves, and the foreign missionaries had maids to do the cooking and laundry for them until the recent rule changes.

Fostering maturity indeed.

Yeah, although it is off topic, I have to say that I am unimpressed with the maturity of the average LDS missionary. And, I would like to add that in some ways it seems to me that LDS men tend to remain emotionally immature into old age. Of course, I don't have a statistical study to back that up, just my personal experience. My take on this is that it is the authoritarian nature of Mormonism that leads to this.

[_charity]

No running home to mom when the McD job ran out.

No. No McD job. Instead of at least partialy providing for himself, he is entirely supported by his parents, as a rule (well, by whatever the Church sees fit to give him out of his parents' money). All the decisions are made for him. The stateside missionaries don't even have to cook for themselves, and the foreign missionaries had maids to do the cooking and laundry for them until the recent rule changes.

Fostering maturity indeed.

The Church doesn't give missionaries their support money. (I think this is true in the affluent countires, but I think there is some assistance to missionaries from the less affluent countries.) The misisonary has to come up with that himself. Many missionaries earn their own. We have helped to support missionaries who were not related to us when the savings and what their parents could manage would not make the amount needed.

All decisions? Where he serves. The companion he has. But he makes his own decisions on how diligent he is. That is a big one. There are mission rules. But he has to decide whether or not to live them. And what does cooking really add to a man's abilities to succeed in a marraige?

[_Zoidberg]

The Church doesn't give missionaries their support money.

Did I say they did? Gosh, charity, start paying attention already. It's not like they come out with this wad of cash. The parents give the money to the Church, and the Church then transfers a certain (usually lesser) amount of money every month to a debit card they give to the missionary.

(I think this is true in the affluent countires, but I think there is some assistance to missionaries from the less affluent countries.) The misisonary has to come up with that himself. Many missionaries earn their own. We have helped to support missionaries who were not related to us when the savings and what their parents could manage would not make the amount needed.

All decisions? Where he serves. The companion he has. But he makes his own decisions on how diligent he is. That is a big one. There are mission rules. But he has to decide whether or not to live them.

Gee, what a big decision. I sometimes I wish I had a white Bible of my own. That would save me sooo much time in deciding literally everything, from what to wear to what movie to rent. The only benefit I'm seeing here is, perhaps, memory improvement, since he has to memorize all those rules. But his peers who are not on a mission have to abide by the rules of their college dorms and their employer. And there are significantly less ways to slack off there than on a mission.

And what does cooking really add to a man's abilities to succeed in a marraige?

Priceless. That's what "mothers who know" are for.

The ability to take care of one's basic needs is essential to achieving maturity. But I strongly suspect that you and I have different views on what constitutes maturity.

[_charity]

The Church doesn't give missionaries their support money.

Did I say they did? Gosh, charity, start paying attention already. It's not like they come out with this wad of cash. The parents give the money to the Church, and the Church then transfers a certain (usually lesser) amount of money every month to a debit card they give to the missionary.

You said

Instead of at least partialy providing for himself, he is entirely supported by his parents, as a rule (well, by whatever the Church sees fit to give him out of his parents' money).

I thought you were referring to tithing.

Parents/families have a choice of how they want the money to be distributed. You can send the missionary money directly, each month. Or you can donate it to the Church, which then takes care of the distribution. The difference is that if you give it the Church, you get a tax deduction. We play by the rules, you know.

And what does cooking really add to a man's abilities to succeed in a marraige?

Priceless. That's what "mothers who know" are for.

You think knowing how to cook is really the decisive quality that ensures a successful marraige?

The ability to take care of one's basic needs is essential to achieving maturity. But I strongly suspect that you and I have different views on what constitutes maturity.

I think the basic quality that indictes maturity is the ability to put one's own interest in second place to another's. What do you think it is?

[_Gazelam]

Charity,

I think the basic quality that indictes maturity is the ability to put one's own interest in second place to another's. What do you think it is?

I like that statement. I would just change "interests" to "needs".

Heres a nice quote I like, and from an odd source:

My Father taught me how to be a man – and not by instilling in me a sense of machismo or an agenda of dominance. He taught me that a real man doesn’t take, he gives; he doesn’t use force, he uses logic; doesn’t play the role of trouble-maker, but rather, trouble-shooter; and most importantly, a real man is defined by what’s in his heart, not his pants.
- Kevin Smith

[_Scottie]

I was a very active TBM when my brother committed suicide.

I went to the temple and sat in the celestial room and prayed about him. I got nothing, but I told everyone that I got an overwhelming sensation that he would be taken care of. They needed to hear that.

Our thought was that nobody that commits suicide is in a right state of mind. They are temporarily insane. God will most definitely take this into account at the judgement.

I always think about the quote, "Mercy for me, justice for everyone else" when I think of these things. Nobody wants to believe that they or their loved ones will be in anything but paradise when they die. That, somehow, hell only applies to the wicked sinners of the world, not of their beloved kin or friends.

As a side note, I think it is wrong that you are forced to do an endowment for someone to get to the celestial room. I can tell you my mind was so far from the person I was supposedly doing the endowment for. It didn't seem fair. Why can't you just go into the celestial room to ponder and pray?