Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

MormonLeaks: Former Mormon Mission President Admitting to Inappropriate Interactions with Women


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Which is more important?

This information coming to light or the source and manner it is being conveyed?

Because frankly I think the former is a lot more important than the latter.

I haven't an issue with the importance of this information, with anything coming to light, or that MormonLeaks shared it.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The thread's headline same across to me as "Canterburyesque," hence my lack of "circumspect, tactful, and solemn" treatment toward it.

Quote

Other than a few posts about church leaders not having discernment, I'm not seeing what you are. Frankly, it's preferable to air the truth, even if it means taking someone or some institution down a peg, than it is to keep things quiet for fear of upsetting someone.

 

I concur with you.  Weaponizing this issue against the Church ("taking ... some institution down a peg"), if that is what is going on, is also a repellant thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think the issue of sexual abuse and how the church responds (or fails to respond) will become a part of President Nelson's legacy.  Consider current events:

  • Church support of the two-party recording law on the heels of...
  • This fairly devastating audio recording
  • The Protect the Children (Sam Young) petition, compilation of accounts of abuse, and march at church headquarters
  • The "Me Too" movement

Good points, a lot has been happening in a relatively short time period.  If President Monson's legacy is partially impacted by the many LGBT issues that happened on his watch, then I think you make a great point with the current events happening that how President Nelson leads the church on this issue should be part of how we view his legacy as well.  

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I concur with you.  Weaponizing this issue against the Church ("taking ... some institution down a peg"), if that is what is going on, is also a repellant thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Stay tuned! The posts keep rolling in!

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

I have not listened to the recording yet but I plan to.  This is personal to me because President Bishop ordained me to the Melchizedek Priesthood when I entered the MTC.  (I went in to the MTC unprepared because my parents had just separated - a long story). 

From what I have learned so far the alleged sexual abuse started while he was a bishop before he was a mission president in Argentina.  He then became the MTC President.

I find all of this extremely disturbing.  I will listen to the recording before making further comments.

my BIL was at the MTC when he was there too, he remembers him but had more to do with his wife-my BIL wasn't getting any letters! he went to Hong Kong

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree that the church can't "go around apologizing to every group or individual who thinks they/he/she has been wronged".  But, following its own teachings, Church leaders should apologize, on behalf of the institution, when it becomes clear that wrongs have been committed by the organization, even in the past.

I agree with you.  As I said, Elder Oaks comments were/are disturbing to me.  However, I think it's important not to just go with sound bites.  Elder Oaks was speaking off the cuff in a press conference, IIRC.  Were he to elaborate, his meaning might be different.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, drums12 said:

I agree with you.  As I said, Elder Oaks comments were/are disturbing to me.  However, I think it's important not to just go with sound bites.  Elder Oaks was speaking off the cuff in a press conference, IIRC.  Were he to elaborate, his meaning might be different.  

I agree, if he were to elaborate.  But, his comments about the Church not apologizing also seem consistent with the Church's actions.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The thread's headline same across to me as "Canterburyesque," hence my lack of "circumspect, tactful, and solemn" treatment toward it.

And here we have another post about the virtues of taking someone or some institution down a peg. Oh, and here: Posted 12 minutes ago  ... they're all over the place! Not to mention the ones about not focusing on that.

Are you suggesting I've been quiet? LOL

I've seen maybe one of two posts (not mine!) about what I think the most important issue is, and even those have been is very Church-centric. Let's see if the #1 problem actually gains any traction.

I’m not talking about the virtues of taking someone down a peg. But, yes, I’d say it’s being quiet when someone  acknowledges not knowing what the real issue is and instead focuses on the inappropriateness of other people’s posts. 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I concur with you.  Weaponizing this issue against the Church ("taking ... some institution down a peg"), if that is what is going on, is also a repellant thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Please don’t assume I’m talking about weaponizing this issue. I haven’t suggested any such thing. 

It’s frustrating to not be able to express one’s thoughts without having motives attacked.

 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree, if he were to elaborate.  But, his comments about the Church not apologizing also seem consistent with the Church's actions.

Here is an interview with SLTrib about not giving an apology. At the 24:00 mark it begins.

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, drums12 said:

Perhaps it's hogwash to many, but I was speaking of my perception.  No doubt I was quite ignorant for much of my life.  In my defense, I read much outside of correlated materials, but it was largely the writings of Bruce R McConkie and his father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith.  I had no idea that Dialogue or Sunstone or the Mormon History Association existed.  Your Brigham Young quote is appropriate, and I believe what Brother Brigham feared has come to pass in the mindset of many modern Mormons.  I grew up in a home with "When the Prophet Speaks, the Debate is Over" hanging on the wall.  I could quote myriad general conference talks in the past 40-50 years which could be interpreted by many ignorant youth such as myself that we are safe to have complete confidence in the Brethren, especially the President of the Church.  In my mind this extended, although to a lesser degree, to local leaders like Bishops and Stake Presidents.  So yes, I put too much faith in fallible humans.  In my defense, that was my interpretation of things I was taught at home and in Church.  

I have seen people live this way and it is a problem. It is the same problem we have with talking about sins. With some people you have to beat their head in to get them to understand but that leaves the more sensitive convinced they are going to burn in hell for minor sins (see The Miracle of Forgiveness). Following the prophet is vitally important and listening to the counsel of Leaders is important. Yet we are stuck with some members who think this of all instruction from Priesthood leaders:

001.jpg

 

And others that unironically believe people go to hell for playing a game with face cards because an apostle put it in a book once.

Yet they are hearing and reading the same General Conference Talks. I wonder sometimes if the problem might be with the listener and not with the message.

I stick with the Trust but Confirm approach to apostolic messages. The problem with being very open with that approach is you end up with the spiritually dead who could not distinguish a revelation from their own opinions if their life depended on it approaching Conference like a restaurant critic.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:
Quote

I concur with you.  Weaponizing this issue against the Church ("taking ... some institution down a peg"), if that is what is going on, is also a repellant thing.

Please don’t assume I’m talking about weaponizing this issue. I haven’t suggested any such thing. 

I actually thought as much.  That's why I said: "Weaponizing this issue against the Church ("taking ... some institution down a peg"), if that is what is going on, is also a repellant thing."

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I should have been more clear.

Elsewhere, however, I am seeing this issue being weaponized against the Church.

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s frustrating to not be able to express one’s thoughts without having motives attacked.

I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I actually thought as much.  That's why I said: "Weaponizing this issue against the Church ("taking ... some institution down a peg"), if that is what is going on, is also a repellant thing."

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I should have been more clear.

Elsewhere, however, I am seeing this issue being weaponized against the Church.

I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

No worries. It happens. My timing is impeccable. I post a minor joke yesterday, and then this whole thing erupts. Time to go back to trying my best to pretend the church doesn’t exist. 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Looks like CA Steve beat me to the punch with the SL Trib link, I'm surprised you missed this as its regularly talked about.  I found Elder Oaks' reasoning that the word apology isn't found in the scriptures to be especially disturbing. 

Well, I can't find "apology" in a concordance to the Scriptures either.  Or maybe he meant this:

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Mormons have many problems as do evangelicals and other groups.  I think the problems I discussed aren't unique to religious organizations, but they can be especially acute with respect to religions.  As for cover-ups and poor accountability, just look at Nauvoo Polygamy or the Mountain Meadows massacre as case in point examples of major problems in Mormon history, and I think as evidenced by Elder Oak's position, illogical reasoning and moral rationalization continues into the present day.  

Part of the problem may be the lack of formal seminary training for Mormon priesthood, and the consequent lack of knowledge of Greek (apologia).  I'll read Oaks' article to see if that is his problem.  As to the examples of lack of accountability you give, the necessity of keeping polygyny confidential is understandable, while the MMM was an extreme outlier.  This is exactly the opposite of the normative evil of the Christian church in the deep South, justifying slavery and the wanton murder of Black people by Christian Klu Klukkers, which continued with Jim Crow long after slavery should have been over.  The Mormon people were never part to that sort of overwhelming Satanic evil.  Not to mention the horrible specter of so-called Christians gleefully murdering each other for the last 2 thousand years.

Link to comment

I am listening to the recording right now.  It's sad that this guy wasn't disciplined back in the 1980's or earlier.  I hope the church owns up to their actions in this.  It's hard not to view Bishop as a proxy for the church and the lady as a proxy for all the victims of abuse and subsequent cover ups.

Edited by Exiled
Link to comment
13 hours ago, drums12 said:

Herein lies the crux of the matter, as far as I'm concerned.  Church culture,and in many cases correlated teachings, put leaders on pedestals...they are almost "wholly other."  If someone is a MP, SP, GA, etc etc he must be much more righteous than the average joe.  I don't think it was this way in the early days.  Early brethren weren't just "yes" men.   The mentality now is, in my opinion, and to my perception, that the Brethren are to be "sustained" no matter what.  

Having served in many leadership callings, I must take exception. Priesthood Leaders (especially on the local level) are servants, and at times it feels more like slaves. If you are speaking of "Church Leadership", as in General Authorities, it is just a handful of men and women with limited time, and individuals we hear from twice a year. Because of this, yes the spotlight is always on them and everyone would love to see and hear more of them. But this post is NOT about those in Salt Lake City, it is about Bishop's, Stake Presidents, and the one on one interaction they have with those who are young, and of the opposite sex. "Pedestal", sorry, I was never issued one with my callings. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No worries. It happens. My timing is impeccable. I post a minor joke yesterday, and then this whole thing erupts. Time to go back to trying my best to pretend the church doesn’t exist. 

No, please don't. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I actually thought as much.  That's why I said: "Weaponizing this issue against the Church ("taking ... some institution down a peg"), if that is what is going on, is also a repellant thing."

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I should have been more clear.

Elsewhere, however, I am seeing this issue being weaponized against the Church.

It seems hard to define exactly what weaponizing is.  In this case, I think there are many people who would like to see the church change its policies and put more controls in place to protect people, would this be considered weaponizing?  If I hope that the current dust storm on this and other issues in the news are catalysts towards positive changes in the church, is that the same as weaponizing?  

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not talking about the virtues of taking someone down a peg. But, yes, I’d say it’s being quiet when someone  acknowledges not knowing what the real issue is and instead focuses on the inappropriateness of other people’s posts. 

Yes, you were talking about that, explicitly. I don't understand the rest of your post; can you give me an example of not knowing what the real issue is and focusing on the inappropriateness of other people's posts? other than your reply to my original post? :)

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

16 out of 25 posts on the first page were about what I said they were, and I counted another 4 before I said it, and other 3 after that...

There is another thread discussing this as well that adds context.

If you don't like the thread you can ignore it or even report it.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Just now, Calm said:

There is another thread discussing this as well.

If you don't like the thread you can ignore it or even report it.

I didn't say i didn't like the thread. I do! I just don't need to counter every post that focuses on the individual or the Church culture. I'm posting from another angle. But I'll check out the other thread and see if they tie together in any way.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

the necessity of keeping polygyny confidential is understandable

Not understandable or morally justifiable in my book.  Rather it was a precedent of deception and violating laws using a justification that some laws of God (polygamy) take precedence over other laws, (honesty and marital fidelity.) 

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is exactly the opposite of the normative evil of the Christian church in the deep South, justifying slavery and the wanton murder of Black people by Christian Klu Klukkers, which continued with Jim Crow long after slavery should have been over.  The Mormon people were never part to that sort of overwhelming Satanic evil. 

Mormons have a clean slate when it comes to racism?  Wow, what world are you living in.  

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not to mention the horrible specter of so-called Christians gleefully murdering each other for the last 2 thousand years.

Last time I checked, I thought Mormons were claiming a Christian heritage?  You can't claim to be Christian and pretend you're not part of that legacy.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Yes, you were talking about that, explicitly. I don't understand the rest of your post; can you give me an example of not knowing what the real issue is and focusing on the inappropriateness of other people's posts? other than your reply to my original post? :)

 

I was talking about the virtues of telling the truth, nothing more. But I’ll bow out. Listening to Bolivian music, which always makes me happy. Talking about abuse doesn’t. 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, drums12 said:

Here's a link to a BCC article that quotes Elder Oaks.  

https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/01/28/all-apologies/

I was quite disturbed by Elder Oaks' comments on one hand.  On the other hand, I understand the Church as an institution can't go around apologizing to every group or individual who thinks they/he/she has been wronged.  I know the President Hinckley apologized to Pastor Chip Murray back in 2005 or 2006 for hurts the Church may have caused.  I loved President Hinckley's humility.  Frankly, sometimes I don't feel much humility from certain members of the 12/FP these days.  However, I admit that I don't know them personally, have spend no time around them, and my own pride probably colors my perceptions.  

O.K.  Oaks was speaking strictly of institutional apologies for standard doctrine, as in the case of the homosexual policies.  Peggy's article was well done, and Oaks obviously misspoke himself, since institutional apologies have been given and will no doubt be given in the future.  Sounds like much ado about nothing. Oaks was not suggesting that people should not repent, and he was not rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  He is no doubt in the forefront of those who believe that saying you are sorry is frequently required.

If we were both Jewish Christians back in the 1st century A.D., we would likely be critical of this or that irascible apostle or bishop, and very admiring of another leader or two.  Personality probably has a lot to do with it.  We need to be a whole lot more tolerant of different styles of speech and behavior, and not so condemnatory.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...