Another Open Letter

[Thinking]

The Salt Lake Tribune published An open letter to the LDS Patriarchy yesterday.

Quote

I can assert that it is never a sign of a healthy system to deny facts, rationalize abuse, minimize assault, enable predators, shame a survivor, and placate a population that looks to you for leadership. Nor is it ever acceptable to re-traumatize those who have been affected by abuse. You have done this, LDS Patriarchy.

Have the flood gates been opened?

If so, I think the biggest problem for the LDS Church is if it is determined that there is an institutional problem. Any large organization will have a few bad apples. However, if the institution seems to protect or facilitate those bad apples, people will begin to lose faith in that institution.

[Exiled]

18 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The Salt Lake Tribune published An open letter to the LDS Patriarchy yesterday.

Have the flood gates been opened?

If so, I think the biggest problem for the LDS Church is if it is determined that there is an institutional problem. Any large organization will have a few bad apples. However, if the institution seems to protect or facilitate those bad apples, people will begin to lose faith in that institution.

My guess is that it is a small percentage that engage in this sort of church-power-sex abuse.  However, one case of a higher up engaging in this sort of conduct is shocking and covering up for the man is even more shocking.  I think this is the dynamic going on.  Anyway, I hope it isn't widespread and if it is, then I hope the church does the right thing and not try to cover up whatever is there.

[Calm]

No supporting facts given with her global statements.

I agree with you if it is pervasive/an institutional issue, it will long reaching effects.

I don't think it has been proven yet, however.  There have been accusations assumed to be true or inflated.

For example, Rob Porter's second wife said she didn't have the language originally to explain what she was going through to her bishop and he was the one who encouraged her to get a restraining order. (Interview with Cooper Anderson)

Denson's claim she met with Asay is counteracted by Leavitt's statement he told no one.  Denson herself expresses a belief in the interview that they would not have given him a higher calling if they knew about it if I understand her correctly:

"And then you take another ------- calling to go to South America to work for the welfare? Which they would not called you had they known you were a predator." Page 56, some language btw  That calling was mid 90s.  If Elder Asay talked to her due to her bishop reporting it, that would have been sometime in 87 or 88.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Calm

[JAHS]

The problem with all this is that it really is mostly just a few bad apples and these specific incidents are blowing it all out proportion as if it is an out of control problem in the church.
Such things don't happen for 99.99% of the total church population. Of course corrections should be made if needed but things like these "open letters" written by a few unfortunate victims
being posted on the internet presents a bad impression to the rest of the world.

Edited April 16, 2018 by JAHS

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The Salt Lake Tribune published An open letter to the LDS Patriarchy yesterday.

Quote

I can assert that it is never a sign of a healthy system to deny facts,

 

What "facts" has the Church denied?

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

rationalize abuse,

What "abuse" has the Church rationalized?

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

minimize assault,

What "assualt" has the Church minimized?

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

enable predators, shame a survivor, and placate a population that looks to you for leadership.

Meh.  This is just a rant.

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

Nor is it ever acceptable to re-traumatize those who have been affected by abuse. You have done this, LDS Patriarchy.

Have the flood gates been opened?

"Flood gates" of what?

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If so, I think the biggest problem for the LDS Church is if it is determined that there is an institutional problem. Any large organization will have a few bad apples. However, if the institution seems to protect or facilitate those bad apples, people will begin to lose faith in that institution.

What "bad apples" has the Church protected?

This seems like a rant, too.

Is there a substantive point to be made here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

I listened to Radio Free Mormon https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/04/radio-free-mormon-29-church-sex-scandal-cover-up-part-2/ , or just the first half, and in it he said that Mckeena Denson called him and discussed details of the case, I guess she is a fan or something since listening to his podcast.

I want to share a quote that he shared because it relates to this topic. He references what the Saviour said: "A leader of men should be a server of all". In the church it seems the members are the servants to the corporate church or leaders. Since the church strives to protect their image or those that are high in the PH, image. It struck me to the core. I wish the church would behave like the Saviour would want. Not like it has with these victims. ETA: Not all leaders, but a few. I got caught up with listening to Radio Free's message, and believed it. But I need to step back and just say a few leaders have forgotten.

 

Edited April 15, 2018 by Tacenda

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In the church it seems the members are the servants to the corporate church or leaders.

Having just spent the last 8-9 hours at church today, serving people, this statement is somewhere between laughable and insulting.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

The Salt Lake Tribune published An open letter to the LDS Patriarchy yesterday.

Have the flood gates been opened?

If so, I think the biggest problem for the LDS Church is if it is determined that there is an institutional problem. Any large organization will have a few bad apples. However, if the institution seems to protect or facilitate those bad apples, people will begin to lose faith in that institution.

All institutions suffer the same basic organizational behavior problems, and all institutions tend to become sclerotic over time.  However, religious institutions have the additional problem of balancing two tendencies of their membership:  (1) adamant faith, and (2) apostasy.  If the religious organization has as a principle "continuing revelation," that can create an additional tendency to some degree of infighting to determine which "authentic" version of the faith will prevail as change inevitably comes.  This infighting will take place among the hierarchy, where it may persist for generations before taking effect.  There may even be long-term whipsawing until a final version of "autenticity" is established.  It is during those periods of change that rival points of view jockey for influence.  The ultimate test of faith will always apply, however, and that is the ultimate purpose of the LDS Church.

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Having just spent the last 8-9 hours at church today, serving people, this statement is somewhere between laughable and insulting.

I think you misunderstood. You are not the corporate church...I'll rectify my statement. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to Radio Free Mormon https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/04/radio-free-mormon-29-church-sex-scandal-cover-up-part-2/ , or just the first half, and in it he said that Mckeena Denson called him and discussed details of the case, I guess she is a fan or something since listening to his podcast.

I want to share a quote that he shared because it relates to this topic. He references what the Saviour said: "A leader of men should be a server of all". In the church it seems the members are the servants to the corporate church or leaders. Since the church strives to protect their image or those that are high in the PH, image. It struck me to the core. I wish the church would behave like the Saviour would want. Not like it has with these victims. ETA: Not all leaders, but a few. I got caught up with listening to Radio Free's message, and believed it. But I need to step back and just say a few leaders have forgotten.

 

Impressed with the open letter..those podcasts are so good. 

[Storm Rider]

43 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Impressed with the open letter..those podcasts are so good. 

Hello Jeanne,

I really dislike this kind of letter. First, this individual does not know jack from shine-ola about what has happened. She has set herself up as judge and jury and knowing nothing of the facts.  She read the newspaper and now has a knee-jerk response and has created an echo chamber for her own anger.  

My advice to thinking humans - how about you sit back and wait for the legal system to function. I know that many think that they are overly enlightened and want to make a rush to judgment, but just wait. 

Oh, and the moment you mention "Patriarchy" as if it is a slur, my eyes roll back, my head goes to one side, and I realize there is not going to be a lot of rational thought to follow....and there wasn't.  

She now has a five seconds of fame, please let's move on and let those in the judicial system say what did and did not happen after they have been given the opportunity to review facts rather than hearsay. 

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Oh, and the moment you mention "Patriarchy" as if it is a slur, my eyes roll back, my head goes to one side, and I realize there is not going to be a lot of rational thought to follow....and there wasn't.  

Ditto.

[Avatar4321]

Is this letter supposed to be serious? It reminds me of 3 Nephi 3. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Having just spent the last 8-9 hours at church today, serving people, this statement is somewhere between laughable and insulting.

The highest leaders give up their retirement years and work until they die or are too sick to work.

Not my idea of being served by others.

[Marginal Gains]

10 hours ago, Thinking said:

The Salt Lake Tribune published An open letter to the LDS Patriarchy yesterday.

Have the flood gates been opened?

If so, I think the biggest problem for the LDS Church is if it is determined that there is an institutional problem. Any large organization will have a few bad apples. However, if the institution seems to protect or facilitate those bad apples, people will begin to lose faith in that institution.

Hard to argue with the paragraph you quoted.

Quote

I can assert that it is never a sign of a healthy system to deny facts, rationalize abuse, minimize assault, enable predators, shame a survivor, and placate a population that looks to you for leadership. Nor is it ever acceptable to re-traumatize those who have been affected by abuse. You have done this, LDS Patriarchy.

It’s unarguably correct.

What part has Jesus taken in making these decisions - to cover up, to not deal with the perpetrator, to try and pay her off, to release confidential member records and compile dossiers against her? If Jesus isn’t involved, then the leadership has gone rogue to protect its own. If he is involved, then he’s complicit. Take your pick.

Given the precedent that Hamula’s excommunication was publicly announced, we are left to assume that Joseph L Bishop is still a member of the Church.

How many more of these cases has the Church already successfully settled quietly that we don’t know about? How much of Church funds has been spent on lawyer fees and settlements over the last 5/10 years?

Edited April 16, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Thinking said:

Have the flood gates been opened?

Doubtful. The church has a pretty good track record of brokering a no-tolerance policy when it comes to sexual sin committed by its leaders. That's why these stories are so sensational when they come out - because they are most definitely exceptions, rather than the rule. 

But what do I know. I'm part of the Patriarchy. 

 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

No supporting facts given with her global statements.

I agree with you if it is pervasive/an institutional issue, it will long reaching effects.

I don't think it has been proven yet, however.  There have been accusations assumed to be true or inflated.

For example, Rob Porter's second wife said she didn't have the language originally to explain what she was going through to her bishop and he was the one who encouraged her to get a restraining order. (Interview with Cooper Anderson)

I don't know that little bit actually addresses the issue, nor challenges anything the Commentary piece said.  

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Denson's claim she met with Asay is counteracted by Leavitt's statement he told no one.  Denson herself expresses a belief in the interview that they would not have given him a higher calling if they knew about it if I understand her correctly:

"And then you take another ------- calling to go to South America to work for the welfare? Which they would not called you had they known you were a predator." Page 56, some language btw  That calling was mid 90s.  If Elder Asay talked to her due to her bishop reporting it, that would have been sometime in 87 or 88.

So you are saying if she spoke with Asay, Asay, surely would have taken it seriously?  There would be no doubt?  The problem with your position is that Denson could very well have spoken with Asay, and as the "prevasivie/an institutional issue" suggests, he did not act accordingly, or perhaps he didn't believe her.  Just like her bishop said he did--hear a victims claim and do nothing.  

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to Radio Free Mormon https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/04/radio-free-mormon-29-church-sex-scandal-cover-up-part-2/ , or just the first half, and in it he said that Mckeena Denson called him and discussed details of the case, I guess she is a fan or something since listening to his podcast.

I want to share a quote that he shared because it relates to this topic. He references what the Saviour said: "A leader of men should be a server of all". In the church it seems the members are the servants to the corporate church or leaders. Since the church strives to protect their image or those that are high in the PH, image. It struck me to the core. I wish the church would behave like the Saviour would want. Not like it has with these victims. ETA: Not all leaders, but a few. I got caught up with listening to Radio Free's message, and believed it. But I need to step back and just say a few leaders have forgotten.

 

Excellent.  I didn't hear RFM's second part of this.  

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Excellent.  I didn't hear RFM's second part of this.  

Consig nails it.

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Doubtful. The church has a pretty good track record of brokering a no-tolerance policy when it comes to sexual sin committed by its leaders. That's why these stories are so sensational when they come out - because they are most definitely exceptions, rather than the rule. 

But what do I know. I'm part of the Patriarchy. 

 

The floodgates could be open. But opening flood gates to a tiny puddle won’t get much water

[changed]

18 hours ago, Thinking said:

The Salt Lake Tribune published An open letter to the LDS Patriarchy yesterday.

Have the flood gates been opened?

If so, I think the biggest problem for the LDS Church is if it is determined that there is an institutional problem. Any large organization will have a few bad apples. However, if the institution seems to protect or facilitate those bad apples, people will begin to lose faith in that institution.

I can assert that it is never a sign of a healthy system to deny facts, rationalize abuse, minimize assault, enable predators, shame a survivor, and placate a population that looks to you for leadership. Nor is it ever acceptable to re-traumatize those who have been affected by abuse. You have done this, LDS Patriarchy.

"minimize" was the key word that stuck out to me here - I think may who go through rough situations are not given the amount of support they would like, and lash out in an attempt to get attention - in an attempt to feel any kind of love or support or concern.  Have you been around kids who were neglected? Who did not get the love and support they needed?  Adults do that too - if they are not loved and supported, they will react...

There are all these talks about those who are supported through trials, and those who have been helped, and an expectation that if something goes wrong you will receive help - for everyone who does not receive help (or the amount of help they think they need) it is very painful.  More talks that outline the reality - that most will not receive support from the church, and you can be honest - how many inactive members does your ward have?  How much have you reached out to them to help them?  How many sick / elderly / poverty stricken people do you have in the ward?  Not all of them are helped - and they would like more than once a month 10 minute visit... so lets face the reality of what everyone is able to do, and explain to everyone they should not expect too much support from the church (so no one is let down), preach self-reliance, personal testimony - no borrowed light.

There is a holocaust quote, spoken by someone who came to the realization that no one was going to come save them - they had to save themselves - 

 If not us, who? If not now, when? ... If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?

The reality is, we all have to fight our own battles, no one else's responsibility to save us - we have the final responsibility for standing up for ourselves.  It is our responsibility - not the prophet, not the bishops, not the RS president - we all have to stand up for ourselves, get through our trials our self... yes, we might get a casserole or two every now and then, but 99% of our trials we will have to fight through on our own.

• Get rid of false expectations.  (The church is not perfect, the church will not save you, the church will not bear your trials)
• Preach more self-reliance,   no borrowed light - no middle-man, it is up to individuals etc. personal responsibility, personal relationship with the savior and G-d, reliance on Gd rather than reliance on church leaders. 

 

  

Edited April 16, 2018 by changed

[california boy]

18 hours ago, Exiled said:

My guess is that it is a small percentage that engage in this sort of church-power-sex abuse.  However, one case of a higher up engaging in this sort of conduct is shocking and covering up for the man is even more shocking.  I think this is the dynamic going on.  Anyway, I hope it isn't widespread and if it is, then I hope the church does the right thing and not try to cover up whatever is there.

I think this incident would have gone completely different if the church leaders had vowed to dig for answers to the allegations and if true, Bishop will be dealt with in the  harshes possible way. The church should have reinforced its no tolerance policy and the victim be compensated for her suffering. Instead the church went defensive and went the route of digging up dirt on the Victim.  What if a church apostle had met with Bishop and sat down with him to get to the bottom of what really happened. If Bishop was willing to admit abuse to a stranger, I think he would have been very straight with an apostle. Does any of this sound better than hiding behind lawyers?  

While the church says it deals harshly with these matters, the appearance says something else  nothing the church has done has given any impression of how seriously the church takes these allegations  THAT is what is causing such heartache

‘It is how the problem is addressed that makes all the difference

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited April 16, 2018 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Consig nails it.

I'm guessing our Commentary author has given him a listen.  I've gotten through about 3/4ths of this second part.  He certainly has knocked a few out of the park.  It is amazing to me how far the church will go to protect itself.  Absolutely appalling.  

[stemelbow]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think this incident would have gone completely different if the church leaders had vowed to dig for answers to the allegations and if true, Bishop will be dealt with in the  harshes possible way. The church should have reinforced its no tolerance policy and the victim be compensated for her suffering. Instead the church went defensive and went the route of digging up dirt on the Victim.  What if a church apostle had met with Bishop and sat down with him to get to the bottom of what really happened. If Bishop was willing to admit abuse to a stranger, I think he would have been very straight with an apostle. Does any of this sound better than hiding behind lawyers?  

While the church says it deals harshly with these matters, the appearance says something else  nothing the church has done has given any impression of how seriously the church takes these allegations  THAT is what is causing such heartache

‘It is how the problem is addressed that makes all the difference

It is.  The Church has completely messed this up.  

I think the Church simply does not want to, nor does it feel like ti should, be held accountable for leaders who abuse and assault.  The Church claims a zero tolerance policy.  But there have been too many times the Church itself has belied it's own public face.  This particular situation shows how understanded the Church will go.