Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Abulafia

Mormon Leaks document on handling Child Abuse

Recommended Posts

Just now, FearlessFixxer said:

One update for all here.  In the wiki page I made a note that in the last case on page two the missionary was serving in a non-mandatory reporting state and his home state is a mandatory reporting state.  The part about his home state is true, however, there is some indication that my initial research into the state he is serving in is incorrect.  As soon as I confirm it, I will edit the wiki, but it appears that he is serving in a mandatory reporting state.

As I asked earlier, does anyone know if the mission president is required to report? Is he considered the same kind of ecclesiastical leader as, say, a bishop or stake president?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Jeanne said:

Does it matter..in the course of real lives and the law...that these documents are six years old.  Have fun Smac tying all this up in pretty little bows like you do.

I wonder how much has changed in 6 years. I don't think we can say one way or the other. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

KM is acting as an agent of the Church, as its legal representative.  So any "investigation" by KM would be for the benefit of the Church, and was almost certainly transmitted to the Church.  Again, KM is the legal voice, but not the ecclesiastical one. 

Not generally or extensively.  But obviously some "investigation" is appropriate.  Denver Snuffer and Sam Young were both disciplined based on their public statements, which were "investigated" by local leaders.

Usually, though, disciplinary proceedings arise based on confessed misconduct.

True.  But KM is not functioning in an investigative capacity in anticipation of ecclesiastical discipline.  It has been contacted regarding legal issues, and is responding to those legal issues.

They can also happen when someone accuses another of wrongdoing.

They can also happen when the wrongdoing is public and obvious (John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, Kate Kelly, Jeremy Runnells, Sam Young).

Which reinforces my point: This document has very little value in gauging the Church's care or lack of care regarding abuse victims.  It is cursory.  It is a spreadsheet with very brief factual summaries.  It is intended as an internal legal document.

Thanks,

-Smac

The church could provide more information if it chose to. But it doesn't and many seem to be fine with that. We are largely in the dark, but that seems to be by design.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Given that the church says there was a "victim," it's reasonable to assume that the abuse happened, as victims don't just show up out of thin air. 

But we could just as easily say that "Given that both the mission leaders who convened a disciplinary council and the home stake president both declined to take adverse action against the elder, it's reasonable to assume that the alleged abuse did not happen."

The document doesn't give us enough to go on.

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Hostile? I'm just going by what the document says: there was an accusation and a victim, and no disciplinary action was taken, and it apparently wasn't reported to law enforcement. Is there some reason that an accusation of abuse shouldn't be at least reported to law enforcement? I would think that's standard procedure. Maybe not.

The statute of limitations could have run.  The purported victim may have moved or declined to cooperate.  There could be lots of reasons.

In the end, however, the Church complies with reporting statutes.

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But I agree with you: these are brief notes and difficult to ascertain anything of substance. I could well be wrong, but what I said seems to be a reasonable assumption, given what's in the spreadsheet. And does it strike anyone else as sad that this is only slightly more than 2 months' worth of reporting? Yikes.

7 instances in 2 months would work out to about 3.5 per month, or about 42 per year.  Out of a missionary force of 59,000.  That works out to 0.071%.

.07% = "yikes?"

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, smac97 said:

7 instances in 2 months would work out to about 3.5 per month, or about 42 per year.  Out of a missionary force of 59,000.  That works out to 0.071%.

.07% = "yikes?"

-Smac

 

why are you using such a small sample size to make that kind of extrapolation?  If it were the reverse and lets say that the document was the same time period and there were 100 cases and an exmormon extrapolated that, you would call them out and be right for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

7 instances in 2 months would work out to about 3.5 per month, or about 42 per year. 

Which is about one case of abuse in the mission field per week.  I'd say "yikes!" is a mild response to this as that is very serious, IMO.

And those are just the reported cases....

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

This is patently false.  We did not carefully select this, nor did the source.  There was no timing on our part either.  I can't speak for the source, they gave us the green light Sunday night.  They did not explicitly tell me why so I suppose they could have been wanting to time it with all that is going on with Sam, but with what I know about the source, I don't think that is what triggered it.

The source is considering coming forward in a couple of weeks so we may be able to shed more light on what happened behind the scenes, but your assumption is 100% false.

Read what I wrote again: "So juxtaposting this document with Sam Young is rather inapt."

Inapt = "not suitable or appropriate in the circumstances."

As for the entirety of your "MormonLeaks" project, res ipsa loquitur, dude.

It's not about information per se.  It's about using carefully-selected bits of information to foment ill will against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, smac97 said:

But we could just as easily say that "Given that both the mission leaders who convened a disciplinary council and the home stake president both declined to take adverse action against the elder, it's reasonable to assume that the alleged abuse did not happen."

The document doesn't give us enough to go on.

The statute of limitations could have run.  The purported victim may have moved or declined to cooperate.  There could be lots of reasons.

In the end, however, the Church complies with reporting statutes.

7 instances in 2 months would work out to about 3.5 per month, or about 42 per year.  Out of a missionary force of 59,000.  That works out to 0.071%.

.07% = "yikes?"

-Smac

Yikes, as in that's 42 reported cases a year, knowing that the vast majority of these cases are never reported at all. I'm not suggesting the church or its missionaries have a higher rate of abuse than the rest of society, but that seems to be how you are interpreting it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I wouldn't consider this apples and oranges, but perhaps, my considerations are apples and oranges.  

I think the age of spreadsheet, six years, is rather perfectly fitting for the Sam Young era, but like you stated, not enough information is within the spreadsheet to make a certain conclusion.  

Not even Ryan McKnight (!!) is agreeing with you here.  

14 minutes ago, lostindc said:

The spreadsheet does create a PR nightmare, especially with the Sam Young situation.  

Which, again, is the point and purpose of MormonLeaks.  To foment ill will against the Church.

14 minutes ago, lostindc said:

It feeds the idea that the Church doesn't necessarily know how to handle these difficult cases.  

It does?  Getting reports to the appropriate parties?  Getting lawyers involved?  Timely assessments and preliminary recommendations?  If anything, this document feeds the idea that the Church is paying close attention to allegations of abuse and responding to them.

As for "how to handle these difficult cases," in the main, the Church can't handle them.  They are for civil authorities, not the Church, to "handle."  See D&C 134:10.

14 minutes ago, lostindc said:

This may or may not be true.  I think we will learn a lot over the next year.  I am not of the belief that the Church is actively covering up anything in this realm, as much as trying to find some sort of peace for all parties as each situation arises.  

I doubt the efforts of framing the spreadsheet as trivial is going to work.  We can see that media is already picking up this leak and concerns continue to grow.  

I've never said the spreadsheet is "trivial."  I'm saying it contains very little information.  I'm saying the Church's concern (or lack thereof) for victims of abuse is not reasonably inferred from a single document purportedly from a law firm working for the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious if you hold the same negative attitude towards whistleblowers in the catholic scandal.

"Whistleblowers" being defined as "a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity," what "whistleblowing" do you see happening here?

The Church is not engaged in "illicit activity."  In fact, the only "illicit activity" in view is coming from the fellow who is openly encouraging employees of the Church to steal from their employer and surreptitiously send the stolen materials to him so he can publish them to the world.   You know, the guy who has set up a website for that exact purpose.  The guy who publicly brags about having "sources" who are employees of the Church.  The guy who has come to this board to gloat about how he may be able to get away with such things while leaving his "sources" to suffer the consequences of doing what he is inviting them to do.

Quote

Some information is damaging and makes the church look bad. That doesn't mean the information shouldn't be released.

Gotta love this the-ends-justify-the-means reasoning here.

By your reckoning, anyone who dislikes you is entitled to encourage your family members and friends to peruse your personal belongings, steal and use your logins, etc. to obtain your personal data, and then if anything improper or untoward is found, that person is fully justified in sending it to a third party who can then publish it to the world.

Who cares about encouraging theft?  Who cares about privacy rights?  

Right?

Quote

As church members we know very little about the operations of the church at the highest levels.

As church members we generally are not in a "need to know" position.

You are a bishop, right?  Do you regularly publish to the world all of the sins and errors and misjudgments and bad things that you come across while functioning in that capacity?  If not, why not?  What do you have to hide?  It'll make your ward look bad, of course.  But as you put it, "that doesn't mean the information shouldn't be released."

Quote

As a general rule I think members simply trust leaders to do the right thing.

Yes.

Quote

If there is a possibility that things aren't being handled correctly, I think membership has a right to know.

Oh, brother.  So do you hold yourself to this standard, in your function as a bishop?  After all, there is always a "possibility" that you aren't handling things correctly.  So by your reckoning your ward - heck, the entire world! - "has a right to know" all the details of the all the things you learn as a bishop.

Right?

Or is there more to it than that.

Quote

It's the difference between following with eyes wide open or following in ignorance.

No.  It's the difference between having a right to know and not having a right to know.

Quote

I don't see the downside of more information whereas you seem to think any negative information is shared for the sole purpose of fomenting ill will against the church. It's a vastly different approach.

Says the guy who writes behind a pseudonymn.

-Smac

Please don't make this personal. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

One disagreement I have (a personal one) with how most bishops and the institutional church usually deals with confessions and "comings to light" of this nature is, I believe that facing the social and legal consequences is a major part of the repentance process. That is, I think someone trying to repent of something like this should be required to turn himself in and cooperate with the investigation. If unwilling, then they aren't repentant, and that would be another factor in the disciplinary council. Yes, that would be terrifying to face (15+ years in prison, lifetime sex offender status, etc.), but are you willing to show godly sorrow and do everything you can to provide restitution (as much as lies in your power), or not? 

While no one can force anyone to turn themselves in, they can say, "You aren't willing to do everything to repair the damage you caused, and you aren't really repentant. That would seem to indicate excommunication, then, but more importantly, your state before God is very bad. You need to do what is right!" 

The damage to victims and victim families is incalculable. All perpetrators can do is not hold back or avail themselves of legal protections (i.e., turn themselves in and cooperate fully). For victim families I know, this would have done so much for them. 

I don't understand why this isn't an ecclesiasitical counseling approach. Are we trying to save the perpetrators' souls, or not? Because not using our influence with them to get them to do "all that they can do" isn't helping their soul, or their full repentance. And it isn't helping the victim families. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

why are you using such a small sample size to make that kind of extrapolation? 

'Cuz that's the sample size that triggered the "yikes."

17 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

If it were the reverse and lets say that the document was the same time period and there were 100 cases and an exmormon extrapolated that, you would call them out and be right for doing so.

I think the "yikes" comment, based as it was on "such a small sample size," was overwrought and unjustified.  You seem to concur.

Thanks for clearing that up.

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wonder how much has changed in 6 years. I don't think we can say one way or the other. 

Doesn't matter to the victims that live with this for a lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

'Cuz that's the sample size that triggered the "yikes."

I think the "yikes" comment, based as it was on "such a small sample size," was overwrought and unjustified.  You seem to concur.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I stand by what I said. That 42 reported cases a year doesn't strike you as sad or upsetting isn't my problem.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

The source is considering coming forward in a couple of weeks so we may be able to shed more light on what happened behind the scenes, but your assumption is 100% false.

That would be 1000% more helpful than anonymous leaks. I can't imagine what kind of person with access to things like this would "consider coming forward in a couple of weeks." 

I don't suppose you can say more about this? Is this a current KM employee?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Jeanne said:

Doesn't matter to the victims that live with this for a lifetime.

I know that. Trust me, I know. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not even Ryan McKnight (!!) is agreeing with you here.  

Which, again, is the point and purpose of MormonLeaks.  To foment ill will against the Church.

It does?  Getting reports to the appropriate parties?  Getting lawyers involved?  Timely assessments and preliminary recommendations?  If anything, this document feeds the idea that the Church is paying close attention to allegations of abuse and responding to them.

As for "how to handle these difficult cases," in the main, the Church can't handle them.  They are for civil authorities, not the Church, to "handle."  See D&C 134:10.

I've never said the spreadsheet is "trivial."  I'm saying it contains very little information.  I'm saying the Church's concern (or lack thereof) for victims of abuse is not reasonably inferred from a single document purportedly from a law firm working for the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I get your point, but it's difficult to accept some of the spin.  I agree with you that the spreadsheet is really limited and we have no idea how the Church handled these situations, but some of the entries suggest some really bad methods.  

It's up to each of us to decide how we interpret the provided information.  For me, I am left saddened.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, rongo said:

That would be 1000% more helpful than anonymous leaks. I can't imagine what kind of person with access to things like this would "consider coming forward in a couple of weeks." 

I don't suppose you can say more about this? Is this a current KM employee?

I can't say right now.  but I promise you that I wish I could

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

It is almost too laughable to label an individual with credibility "beyond reproach" stealing documents that are clearly marked confidential and not for the public.  Really, to repeat it is got me rolling on the floor.

This is particularly so given that the stolen documents solicited and received by Mr. McKnight come from a law firm.  

I wonder how Mr. McKnight would feel if someone who disliked him encouraged employees of his attorney to steal attorney work product pertaining to Mr. McKnight and send it out for publication to the world.  As long as it's done anonymously, of course.

(And no, I am emphatically not hinting for anyone to dox or otherwise steal from Mr. McKnight.  It's disgusting and appalling that he is encouraging other people to steal for him, so I obviously have no interest in replicating his behavior.)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Whistleblowers" being defined as "a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity," what "whistleblowing" do you see happening here?

The Church is not engaged in "illicit activity."  In fact, the only "illicit activity" in view is coming from the fellow who is openly encouraging employees of the Church to steal from their employer and surreptitiously send the stolen materials to him so he can publish them to the world.   You know, the guy who has set up a website for that exact purpose.  The guy who publicly brags about having "sources" who are employees of the Church.  The guy who has come to this board to gloat about how he may be able to get away with such things while leaving his "sources" to suffer the consequences of doing what he is inviting them to do.

Gotta love this the-ends-justify-the-means reasoning here.

By your reckoning, anyone who dislikes you is entitled to encourage your family members and friends to peruse your personal belongings, steal and use your logins, etc. to obtain your personal data, and then if anything improper or untoward is found, that person is fully justified in sending it to a third party who can then publish it to the world.

Who cares about encouraging theft?  Who cares about privacy rights?  

Right?

As church members we generally are not in a "need to know" position.

You are a bishop, right?  Do you regularly publish to the world all of the sins and errors and misjudgments and bad things that you come across while functioning in that capacity?  If not, why not?  What do you have to hide?  It'll make your ward look bad, of course.  But as you put it, "that doesn't mean the information shouldn't be released."

Yes.

Oh, brother.  So do you hold yourself to this standard, in your function as a bishop?  After all, there is always a "possibility" that you aren't handling things correctly.  So by your reckoning your ward - heck, the entire world! - "has a right to know" all the details of the all the things you learn as a bishop.

Right?

Or is there more to it than that.

No.  It's the difference between having a right to know and not having a right to know.

Says the guy who writes behind a pseudonymn.

-Smac

It seems to me that the leak provides some information about how the church may decide and act in the cases of abuse. Do they have all of the information? No. But that doesn't mean there aren't issues raised. I'd prefer to see more information, not less, as would seem your preference. IF the church is engaged in activity that is aimed primarily at protecting the reputation of the church, even at the expense of victims, or failure to send a missionary home where he might be reported, then I believe more info is needed. Sticking your head in the sand and decrying what has been released, because we don't know everything (because the church chooses not to disclose and not everything on this issue has been leaked) seems to indicate a willful blindness. If you've ever watched Spotlight, or read about the Catholic scandal, you know that not everything came out at once. I'm guessing that in many whistleblowing situations only partial information is leaked. That doesn't mean there isn't more to learn, but in this case Mormon Leaks has leaked information that could indicate bad behavior by the church. Is it illicit behavior? I don't know. We need more information. The church can provide that.

The rest of your post, as has become typical for you, is an attempt to personalize this as an attack at me. Your game is old and I'm not responding to you trying to make this about me.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, lostindc said:
Quote

Not even Ryan McKnight (!!) is agreeing with you here.  

Which, again, is the point and purpose of MormonLeaks.  To foment ill will against the Church.

It does?  Getting reports to the appropriate parties?  Getting lawyers involved?  Timely assessments and preliminary recommendations?  If anything, this document feeds the idea that the Church is paying close attention to allegations of abuse and responding to them.

As for "how to handle these difficult cases," in the main, the Church can't handle them.  They are for civil authorities, not the Church, to "handle."  See D&C 134:10.

I've never said the spreadsheet is "trivial."  I'm saying it contains very little information.  I'm saying the Church's concern (or lack thereof) for victims of abuse is not reasonably inferred from a single document purportedly from a law firm working for the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I get your point, but it's difficult to accept some of the spin.  

The only "spin" here is that we know next to nothing about the issues referenced in the spreadsheet.

And that's not "spin."  That's just reality.

2 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I agree with you that the spreadsheet is really limited and we have no idea how the Church handled these situations, but some of the entries suggest some really bad methods.  

Could you elaborate?

2 minutes ago, lostindc said:

It's up to each of us to decide how we interpret the provided information.  For me, I am left saddened.

I'm not.  For me, I find it gratifying that the Church has a lawfirm actively tracking issues such as this, that the law firm is providing sound legal advice, etc.

The Church has stated that it is working hard to address allegations of sexual abuse.  This spreadsheet corroborates that.

I don't understand your point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems to me that the leak provides some information about how the church may decide and act in the cases of abuse. Do they have all of the information? No. But that doesn't mean there aren't issues raised. I'd prefer to see more information, not less, as would seem your preference.

Says the guy hiding behind a pseudonym.

I'd prefer not to have such sensitive and difficult issues published willy-nilly, apparently for the sole purpose of gratifying the curiosity of bystanders who have no legitimate claim of a "right to know."

Quote

IF the church is engaged in activity that is aimed primarily at protecting the reputation of the church, even at the expense of victims, or failure to send a missionary home where he might be reported, then I believe more info is needed.

Hostile speculation does not create a "right to know."

Quote

Sticking your head in the sand and decrying what has been released, because we don't know everything (because the church chooses not to disclose and not everything on this issue has been leaked) seems to indicate a willful blindness.

Says the guy hiding behind a pseudonym.

You refuse to publish your IRL name.  I don't want you to, but why is it that you get to be selective about publicly disclosing your personal and sensitive information, but others do not?  

Out of curiosity, if Ryan McKnight were to publish your IRL name, would you object, or would you praise him?

Quote

If you've ever watched Spotlight, or read about the Catholic scandal, you know that not everything came out at once.

Oh, brother.  Not even Ryan McKnight (!!) is suggesting that there is a scandal afoot.

Quote

I'm guessing that in many whistleblowing situations only partial information is leaked.

Again, what "illicit activity" is precipitating the whistleblowing, Mr. Hides-Behind-a-Pseudonym-While-Demanding-Unfettered-Transparency-from-Everyone-Else?

Quote

That doesn't mean there isn't more to learn, but in this case Mormon Leaks has leaked information that could indicate bad behavior by the church. Is it illicit behavior? I don't know. We need more information. The church can provide that.

Says the guy who hides behind a pseudonym.

There are also legitimate reasons to not publicly disclose sensitive personal information.  That is a privilege you claim (demand, even) for yourself, but apparently deny to the Church.  Why?

-Smac

Stop the personal attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I stand by what I said. That 42 reported cases a year doesn't strike you as sad or upsetting isn't my problem.

Driving on I-15 the other day I saw a traffic notice that said something like "129 deaths on Utah roads this summer."

Yes, that strikes me as sad.  Any non-zero number strikes me as said.  But "yikes" seemed to suggest something unexpected or disproportionate.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Says the guy hiding behind a pseudonym.

I'd prefer not to have such sensitive and difficult issues published willy-nilly, apparently for the sole purpose of gratifying the curiosity of bystanders who have no legitimate claim of a "right to know."

Hostile speculation does not create a "right to know."

Says the guy hiding behind a pseudonym.

You refuse to publish your IRL name.  I don't want you to, but why is it that you get to be selective about publicly disclosing your personal and sensitive information, but others do not?  

Out of curiosity, if Ryan McKnight were to publish your IRL name, would you object, or would you praise him?

Oh, brother.  Not even Ryan McKnight (!!) is suggesting that there is a scandal afoot.

Again, what "illicit activity" is precipitating the whistleblowing, Mr. Hides-Behind-a-Pseudonym-While-Demanding-Unfettered-Transparency-from-Everyone-Else?

Says the guy who hides behind a pseudonym.

There are also legitimate reasons to not publicly disclose sensitive personal information.  That is a privilege you claim (demand, even) for yourself, but apparently deny to the Church.  Why?

-Smac

I'm just saving the repeated personal attacks in case you try to edit. 2 times in 2 days you've repeatedly attempted to make this all about me and use of a pseudonym. It was funny at first, now it's irritating. I'm guessing that's your goal, so well done.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Darren10
      I just read a news article on Buzzfeed regarding women confessing abuse to their bishops. I was left with some questions about the content of the article. Any feedback to clarify will be appreciated. Especially appreciated would be feedback from people with professional training in law or domestic abuse. 
      The article in question is called, In The Wake Of Rob Porter Allegations, Mormon Women Say Church Leaders Encouraged Them To Stay With Their Abusers. Let me cite you a few portions from this article and address my confusing regarding its content. I will try not to cite too much as to not violate copyright protection of Buzzfeed’s article but enough to let my concerns known. 
      Buzzfeed bases their report on “more then 20” who spoke to them regarding their experiences in speaking with us supportive bishops and in one reported instance in the article, a stake president. Although Buzzfeed does mention several other articles having appeared reporting unsupportive LDS clergy, around 20 women does not seem representative enough for the Church as a whole. I say this fully realizing and fully agreeing with the idea that if any one of their reported testimony to Buzzfeed is too many. No abused women should find non support from anyone under the auspice of being an LDS clergy leader. 
      First off, was the boyfriend she’s dated attending the same “LDS church-run facility”? If so, did he see his bishop? Would anyone with first hand knowledge as to an LDS confession, including from non LDS members in “LDS-run universities” disagree that, if the report is accurate and assuming the woman from Colorado did nothing to provoke the assault (more on that in a bit), that he would not be condemned by said bishop? 
      Now, regarding what in no doubt controversial lanuage by me, “the woman from Colorado did nothing to provoke the assault”, let me explain. First and foremost, this woman from Colorado absolutely deserved no assault. However, that does not mean she did nothing to provoke anger in her boyfriend. No doubt Buzzfeed readers are left with the impression that she did nothing at all. That very well maybe true but not guaranteed. I’ve dated girls who’d pinch me to inflict pain because she was upset at me, I’ve been tripped out of jealous resentment by one causing pain, pulled away from hanging out with friends simply because she wanted to spend time with me after being 20 minutes separated, and other annoying events were provided to me by ex girlfriends. Everyone of those instances triggered resentment in me. In some of those cases, anger. This is in addition it my 20 years of marriage. There have been moments when my wife really has pushed me to my limits of my patience and anger. So the thought of hitting a girl has crossed my mind more than once in my life; but except for my own being a total jerk moment in 6th grade, I have never hit a girl in my life. You simply walk away, get your mind off the situation, on to something else you’re calmer or calmer and in control. 
      Now, back to the Colorado woman. Did she inflict physical pain upon her boyfriend? Did he hit her after she hit him? She slapped him and then he punched her in the face a couple of times? Again, she would not have deserved being hit and I believe she should not have been assaulted as she reported but her words do not vindicate her of any wrong doing so I find this reporting wanting in detail.
      As for her husband, the man who developed mental illness, I think of my wife’s grandfather. After his first wife passed away, he remarried a woman who developed Alzheimer’s which became violent. At one point she tried to kill him with a knife. Eh placed her in a home and wiped out all his personal savings after insurance ran out. He paid for her stay unti the end of her life. I thought that was very noble of him. But, could he have divorced her? Absolutely. In fact, I think I would in the same situation. I’d make sure she’s taken care of to the best of my ability, but probably divorce her. As for her counsel from her bishop, I do believe that happened but under what circumstances is not known. What the bishop told her is not inherently wrong, but not correct in my opinion as per what was reported in this article. Under what circumstances would an LDS bishop counsel divorce or if they are prohibited from promoting divorce, at least think and / or feel that divorce was correct? My family was over at a friend’s house last Sunday for dinner. The lady of the house recently divorced and is a divorce lawyer by profession. Niki (my wife) and I have known her and loved her as a good friend years before there was even talk of divorce between her and her ex husband. I asked her about her experience with her bishop(s) and stake president through the ordeal. She said that although none openly advocated divorce they all knew it was the best course for her marriage. In her case, her ex husband had cheated on her several times during the last few years of their marriage, well, of their marriage and living together (the divorce took three years after their separation). She said that the stake president gave her the most grief out of all the leaders she spoke to. At one point he told her to pray again to make sure she was making the right decision. She said she simply told him no. That her mind was made up and divorce was her course of action. I told her “good”. Niki agreed with her as well as her new husband of four years, who is also very active LDS member.
      I found nothing wrong or “unMormon” my friend’s response. Is there anything in the LDS Church which obligates a Mormon to obey his or her stake president’s counsel? And, if any Mormon believes he or she should, why? I understand that LDS culture does stress that many times but I have never found that foundation as correct. All LDS members should absolutely include God and living revelation into their personal decisions. 
      My last citation:
      OK, a bishop said, ‘if you lost a little weight he wouldn’t cheat’? This sends up a big red flag in me. Under what circumstance would a bishop say such a thing? The only circumstance I can think of is a bishop responding according to his cultural learning. By that I mean his life as a whole. I cannot think of any official LDS Church teachings including conference talks, lesson mauals, and especially not scripture, which would influence and Mormon to think such a thing. This, in my view, is completely worldly, not remotely “LDS”. That said, i if there is a “Mormon culture” out there which teaches such a thing, is there any disagreement from any active / believing Mormon who would think in this manner is a result of worldly teachings?
      Thanks for your time reading. I look forward to responses.
      UPDATE: Taking so much time to write up this post and struggling to keep a sweet five year old off of my lap while typing all of this I had forgotten to bring up the lawyer at the end. He is stated that he in 26 years seen Mormon bishops speak to the the defense of accused male abusers but never to the female accusers. My question is of those times how many of those bishops were summoned to testify on behalf of the female accusers as opposed to being summoned to testify for the male accused? I think such data would paint a more accurate picture as opposed to Buzzfeed’s portrayal of some sort of widespread neglect amongst LDS leaders. 
    • By Bernard Gui
      http://www.lds.org/c...ldsorg?lang=eng
      Mrs. Gui and I have been involved in piloting the Addiction Recovery Program, emphasis
      on the support of families and loved ones of addicts. When we had our initial experiences with
      loved ones in addiction, there wasn't much the Church offered in the way of help, except
      to point us to Al-Anon. Now, there are LDS12-Step programs for addicts and for families and
      loved ones whose lives are messed up with co-dependency. The 12 Steps are similar to
      AA, but Christ centered with quotes from General Authorities and LDS scriptures in addition
      to the AA resources that are available. We have learned more about the Atonement and
      its practical application in this program than we have anywhere else. It is hands-on and
      powerful. Hurrah!
      I invite anyone who is struggling with any kind of addiction or who has had their lives turned upside
      down by having an addict in the home to find the LDS ARP program near you. The Church
      website has a locator. This is a huge step in the right direction.
      These are effective spiritual tools and bring great blessings and healing to the victims of addiction!!
      Bernard
×
×
  • Create New...