And now, Gina Colvin faces a Disciplinary Council.

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No it has not.  You made a very specific accusation and you've been issued a CFR.  I'm watching to see how you answer this as well.

You stated:

And:

So, provide the actual quotes where she's lied (and also link to where she stated these lies) or withdraw that accusation.

Sorry, you quoted me before I finished my edit.  

Thanks for watching.

[Jeanne]

On 11/30/2018 at 4:29 PM, The Nehor said:

Yeah sorry, I have been slacking off.

I'll forgive you for slacking off...😊

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Sorry, you quoted me before I finished my edit.  

Thanks for watching.

You did not provide links for each of the quotes you posted.

Also, you have no idea what she believes or if she is telling lies.   You might want to think before you attack and accuse someone of lying when you can't really provide any real proof that lies were told.

I'll let Julie decide if you've met her CFR.

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/30/2018 at 8:21 PM, Tacenda said:

I sense that she is a good person as well. And I think a lot of members are finding it difficult to see her and others ex'd in the last few years for standing up for things. And not even committing grevious sins and such. Ran across this link on the other board. https://kutv.com/news/local/survey-commitment-of-of-lds-church-members-chilled-by-high-profile-excommunications

Quote

"Based on this information, it’s important to gauge how effective and worthwhile excommunication is as a tool for Mormon boundary maintenance," Knoll wrote.

Why?

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

You did not provide links for each of the quotes you posted.

Sorry, I thought you might have read the Patheos article that I provided.  The link was posted earlier in the thread, too.  All the quotes come from her article.  She wrote those things there.

Quote

Also, you have no idea what she believes or if she is telling lies.   You might want to think before you attack and accuse someone of lying when you can't really provide any real proof that lies were told.

She might believe what she writes.  I'll grant the possibility.  Let me ask you: if she is reporting a lie that she believes is she lying, or merely wrong?  

Here's an example of something she wrote that is a lie: "There are no guidelines that must be followed in order to protect children in Mormon church contexts from sexual abuse."  The reason this is a lie?  Because there are indeed guidelines.  So saying there are none is a lie.  It is good of you to hold my feet to the fire in showing my references.  But shouldn't Gina check her statements of fact to ensure that they are factual?  If she had written something more along the lines of "The church is taking steps to improve in this area, but they are inadequate," then I would have classified her statement as perfectly acceptable opinion that included truth.  But what she wrote was false.  And she should have known that it was false.

Quote

I'll let Julie decide if you've met her CFR.

I don't recall asking you if I've met her CFR.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

You might want to think before you attack and accuse someone of lying when you can't really provide any real proof that lies were told.

Just wanted to add something.

I am not calling her a liar.  That is going too far; it implies that she always lies.  I'm sure she doesn't.  But she is using lies to attack something that is at its fundamental level a good and benevolent institution that is of course imperfect as all human institutions are imperfect.  Does she genuinely expect that her words will cause changes to take place in that institution?  I don't think that she believes that at all.  I'd be very surprised if she genuinely thought that -- and then I would have to say that she is clueless.  I think that she believes the institution is evil, and wants to make it as irrelevant as she believes it is evil.  I'd prefer she do this from outside the institution.  In fact, even if it weren't a church she was uttering calumnies about, like as if it were a social club, I'd still prefer she do it from the outside.

You may think that she is right about what she writes, and that the Church should just smile and suck up the calumnies.  If that's your opinion, you're entitled to it.  But I strenuously disagree.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Stargazer

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

You did not provide links for each of the quotes you posted.

Also, you have no idea what she believes or if she is telling lies.   You might want to think before you attack and accuse someone of lying when you can't really provide any real proof that lies were told.

I'll let Julie decide if you've met her CFR.

I'm not familiar with Gina or her ideas, but I'm wondering, do you know if she provides references for her statement that the church has a history of sex trafficking?

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think that has been adequately covered here already.  

But, since I'm sure that's not enough for you, try this: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2018/09/when-church-leaders-are-more-important-than-church-children/

Quotes:

• "...the LDS Church has a history of sex trafficking young women while still requiring adulation for the perpetrators of what today would be considered a sex crime."
• "Children and youth leaders are not required to be signatories to a code of ethics.  Children and youth leaders are not trained in the area of the prevention of clergy or lay leader sexual abuse.  There are no guidelines that must be followed in order to protect children in Mormon church contexts from sexual abuse."

I'm sure you can find more.  Although I am sure that you believe she is telling the truth about these things (especially how virtually every leader she seems to have interacted with was either a sex offender, adulterer, or pedophile).  Which means it's my opinion vs yours.  I believe she is lying.  If you don't, fine.

She also reports she has "countless friends who were sexually assaulted in Mormon contexts where instead of their protection and healing every mechanism was used to preserve community cohesion and the reputation and repentance of the perpetrator."  Countless.  Why does she use that word?  Because there are so many she cant count them all?  That's a lot of friends who have been sexually abused.  Or does "countless" mean that she hasn't counted them, but there's a lot?  What is it?  And are they all friends?  Or just acquaintances?  Or stories she's read on the internet?

Does this meet your requirement for a CFR?

 

Can you please post the links to where you’re quoting?  That’s part of supplying references.  And, I really am interested in reading more about why she’d post or believe that too!

Thanks, Stargazer.

Edited December 3, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not familiar with Gina or her ideas, but I'm wondering, do you know if she provides references for her statement that the church has a history of sex trafficking?

Hopefully Statgazer will honor the CFR and post some links.  I’m interested to see what she has found or written that backs up her beliefs on that!  (I’d never heard she believes this.)

Too bad she doesn’t post here!  We could call for references when now we can’t 

Edited December 3, 2018 by JulieM

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Can you please post the links to where you’re quoting?  That’s part of supplying references.  And, I really am interested in reading more about why she’s post that too!

Thanks, Stargazer.

I'm sorry, Julie, I can't do this because there are no linkable targets I can link to within the article.  There is only the entire article, which isn't particularly long.  The quotes I extracted are within the article, you just have to read it.  I don't know if I should post the entire article, because I am unsure if that would be a copyright violation (is Patheos a copyrighted site?  I don't know.)

Here it is again: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2018/09/when-church-leaders-are-more-important-than-church-children/

I'd be willing to bet she would be willing to post here, if someone invited her.  I am sure because she seems interested in getting her message out.  I would be polite to her if she did.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Stargazer

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/29/2018 at 8:11 AM, smac97 said:

I understand your frustration, but I don't think we can/should ever say such things about anyone leaving or being expelled - because of their own misconduct - from the Church. 

The Savior sought out the one who left the ninety and nine.  He didn't say "good riddance."  

"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.  How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?  And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.  Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."  (Matthew 18:11-14)

It seems pretty clear that discipline is necessary and appropriate.  Her behavior toward the Church is, I think, incompatible with continuing membership in it.  That is her choice, and I am saddened by it.  But perhaps time and distance can help her find a way back.  If not, well, we can wish her the best.

Thanks,

-Smac

The best I can wish any bitter apostate is something the apostate might not desire at the moment: a reconversion experience similar to that of Alma the younger. 

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Hopefully Statgazer will honor the CFR and post some links.  I’m interested to see what she has found or written that backs up her beliefs on that!  (I’d never heard she believes this.)

Too bad she doesn’t post here!  We could call for references when now we can’t 

I should clarify that the quotes I provided came out of an article written by Gina, a link to which I have provided about 3 times now.  She has written other things that were posted on Patheos, but I haven't read those and so cannot comment.  Everything that I have said so far, and the quotes I have extracted, is the result of my reading of what she wrote in that one article.  That's all the references I can provide: what she wrote and what was posted on Patheos.  

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm sorry, Julie, I can't do this because there are no linkable targets I can link to within the article.  There is only the entire article, which isn't particularly long.  The quotes I extracted are within the article, you just have to read it.  I don't know if I should post the entire article, because I am unsure if that would be a copyright violation (is Patheos a copyrighted site?  I don't know.)

Here it is again: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2018/09/when-church-leaders-are-more-important-than-church-children/

I'd be willing to bet she would be willing to post here, if someone invited her.  I am sure because she seems interested in getting her message out.  I would be polite to her if she did.

https://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/270-serving-up-children-to-paedophiles-the-lds-church-and-the-west-virginia-michael-jensen-sex-abuse-case-tom-and-juliette/

Listen to this podcast and you might be as upset as she is, I know I am.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/270-serving-up-children-to-paedophiles-the-lds-church-and-the-west-virginia-michael-jensen-sex-abuse-case-tom-and-juliette/

Listen to this podcast and you might be as upset as she is, I know I am.

Thanks for the offer, but I don't need/want to be stirred up about the matter. I get riled up enough just by reading about it here.

I am not denying that such things happen.  I do deny that they are as prevalent as this Gina Colvin claims they are.  I lived for 30 some years in a particular stake in Washington state, and in that time there were no, repeat NO, occurrences of church leaders either committing or covering up the committing of child abuse.  That I am aware of, at least, and I am pretty sure that things of that nature would be a matter of some currency amongst the members.  As for adulterous situations, during that entire time (in a large ward with at least 200 attendance at sacrament meeting every week) I can recall exactly one couple in a temple marriage who got into a confusing state (and disfellowshipment), but with counseling managed to repair their marriage and are still doing very well.  And only two other temple divorces, and these didn't involve actionable misconduct.  In 30 years.  So either Sis. Colvin is living in a horrendous hotspot of sexual deviance (which is certainly possible), or she's lying/exaggerating/projecting about the problem.  If she's not lying, the Church needs to send someone to New Zealand and clean the place out.  

My wife has told me that in the 40 years she has lived within her stake in south England, she had a bishop about that long ago who was tossed into prison for pedophilia.  But the point here is that he wasn't allowed to continue his predation once it was discovered -- it was handled as swiftly as possible, both by the Church and by the government.  Interestingly, it was her father who was put into the position of presiding elder over the ward until they could call a new bishop.  So she was close enough to the matter to know something.  And that's it, as far as church leaders are concerned in this stake.

Again, if Sis. Colvin's assertions are true, that's a very bad thing, and the Church needs to investigate and fix things.  But even if they are true for her stake, she is completely off-base trying to extend the problem to the entire worldwide church, which is what she is doing.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Stargazer

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/270-serving-up-children-to-paedophiles-the-lds-church-and-the-west-virginia-michael-jensen-sex-abuse-case-tom-and-juliette/

Listen to this podcast and you might be as upset as she is, I know I am.

No, thanks.  I'm willing to listen to what people have to say, but this has to be on my terms.  Time is scarce for most of us, so my terms are that people like Colvin put what they want to say down in writing.  This helps reduce the meandering messiness of podcasts.  It provides inducement for the purveyors of information to introduce some measure of structure in their presentation, and in their reasoning.

I value General Conference talks because they are presented verbally, and on-demand videos are available for repeat viewing.  But then the talks are transcribed and published in written form.  And I think the speakers, knowing that this will be happening, draft their talks so as to be accessible to both the viewer and the reader.  It's an all-around good system for getting information about.

Moreover, I'm not as enthused about podcasts from people like Dehlin/Reel/Colvin because they are, in my view, "addicted to outrage."  Their podcasts are intended to goad, to stir up resentments, to provoke . . . well, "outrage."  By way of evidence, I point you to . . . your own response: "Listen to this podcast and you might be as upset as she is, I know I am."

I just started a thread about this topic: "Addicted to Outrage" - Implications for the Church.  Rage and vitriol and condemnation against the Church are the nearly-exclusive product being sold by Dehlin and Reel and Colvin (Sam Young and Jeremy Runnells do this as well, but not primarily through podcasts).  And as time goes on, their listeners become acclimated and desensitized to the level of outrage they are putting out, so Dehlin and Reel and Colvin have to ratchet things up even more in order to maintain high emotional impact.  Emotions such as fear, anger, perhaps even hate, against the Church and its leaders.  These emotions, obviously, will sooner or later bleed over into perceptions of the members of the Church as well.  

Anyway, I'm willing to listen to what Dehlin and Reel and Colvin have to say, but to a limited extent, and on terms I deem reasonable.  I don't feel like turning over hours and hours of my life to lectures and harangues from people who are addicted to outrage, who are tearing down something I know to be substantively and essentially and overwhelmingly good: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 3, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not familiar with Gina or her ideas, but I'm wondering, do you know if she provides references for her statement that the church has a history of sex trafficking?

I would hope so....that's something I hadn't heard before (sex trafficking).  It looks like Stargazer did post a reference now, so I'll take a look (and I see that Tacenda has also posted some information and a link).  

Everything I've read from Gina, she's backed it up with either why she believes something or gives references, etc, so hopefully she's done that here too.  I admit that I have not followed her closely or read much of what she's written lately and I had not read the blog referred to on this.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No, thanks.  I'm willing to listen to what people have to say, but this has to be on my terms.  Time is scarce for most of us, so my terms are that people like Colvin put what they want to say down in writing.  This helps reduce the meandering messiness of podcasts.  It provides inducement for the purveyors of information to introduce some measure of structure in their presentation, and in their reasoning.

I value General Conference talks because they are presented verbally, and on-demand videos are available for repeat viewing.  But then the talks are transcribed and published in written form.  And I think the speakers, knowing that this will be happening, draft their talks so as to be accessible to both the viewer and the reader.  It's an all-around good system for getting information about.

Moreover, I'm not as enthused about podcasts from people like Dehlin/Reel/Colvin because they are, in my view, "addicted to outrage."  Their podcasts are intended to goad, to stir up resentments, to provoke . . . well, "outrage."  By way of evidence, I point you to . . . your own response: "Listen to this podcast and you might be as upset as she is, I know I am."

I just started a thread about this topic: "Addicted to Outrage" - Implications for the Church.  Rage and vitriol and condemnation against the Church are the nearly-exclusive product being sold by Dehlin and Reel and Colvin (Sam Young and Jeremy Runnells do this as well, but not primarily through podcasts).  And as time goes on, their listeners become acclimated and desensitized to the level of outrage they are putting out, so Dehlin and Reel and Colvin have to ratchet things up even more in order to maintain high emotional impact.  Emotions such as fear, anger, perhaps even hate, against the Church and its leaders.  These emotions, obviously, will sooner or later bleed over into perceptions of the members of the Church as well.  

Anyway, I'm willing to listen to what Dehlin and Reel and Colvin have to say, but to a limited extent, and on terms I deem reasonable.  I don't feel like turning over hours and hours of my life to lectures and harangues from people who are addicted to outrage, who are tearing down something I know to be substantively and essentially and overwhelmingly good: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, you amaze me with the time you take to comment on posts and in this case, answer posts. You're awesome and I understand your being careful with expending too much time on something because IMO, your well thought out posts take so much of your time. And I don't mind not wanting to know the warts in the church as well. And that wasn't a dig, just think you'd be happier not knowing. 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Thanks for the offer, but I don't need/want to be stirred up about the matter. I get riled up enough just by reading about it here.

I am not denying that such things happen.  I do deny that they are as prevalent as this Gina Colvin claims they are.  I lived for 30 some years in a particular stake in Washington state, and in that time there were no, repeat NO, occurrences of church leaders either committing or covering up the committing of child abuse.  That I am aware of, at least, and I am pretty sure that things of that nature would be a matter of some currency amongst the members.  As for adulterous situations, during that entire time (in a large ward with at least 200 attendance at sacrament meeting every week) I can recall exactly one couple in a temple marriage who got into a confusing state (and disfellowshipment), but with counseling managed to repair their marriage and are still doing very well.  And only two other temple divorces, and these didn't involve actionable misconduct.  In 30 years.  So either Sis. Colvin is living in a horrendous hotspot of sexual deviance (which is certainly possible), or she's lying/exaggerating/projecting about the problem.  If she's not lying, the Church needs to send someone to New Zealand and clean the place out.  

My wife has told me that in the 40 years she has lived within her stake in south England, she had a bishop about that long ago who was tossed into prison for pedophilia.  But the point here is that he wasn't allowed to continue his predation once it was discovered -- it was handled as swiftly as possible, both by the Church and by the government.  Interestingly, it was her father who was put into the position of presiding elder over the ward until they could call a new bishop.  So she was close enough to the matter to know something.  And that's it, as far as church leaders are concerned in this stake.

Again, if Sis. Colvin's assertions are true, that's a very bad thing, and the Church needs to investigate and fix things.  But even if they are true for her stake, she is completely off-base trying to extend the problem to the entire worldwide church, which is what she is doing.

Well, I will take both you and Smac's opinions into account, thank you!

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Smac, you amaze me with the time you take to comment on posts and in this case, answer posts. You're awesome and I understand your being careful with expending too much time on something because IMO, your well thought out posts take so much of your time. And I don't mind not wanting to know the warts in the church as well. And that wasn't a dig, just think you'd be happier not knowing. 

You have misunderstood me.  I am find with discussing "the wards in the Church."  I've been doing that on this board for 14 years (and for several years on ZLMB before that).

Again: "I'm willing to listen to what people have to say, but this has to be on my terms."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 3, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The best I can wish any bitter apostate is something the apostate might not desire at the moment: a reconversion experience similar to that of Alma the younger. 

I think you'd be surprised by how many "bitter apostate"(s) would LOVE a reconversion experience. How many have studied and prayed vigorously for such an experience, yet don't receive it? Many. You seem to think that people want to leave the religion they've dedicated their lives to and endure the damaging repercussions on their lives and relationships, when in my experience most people you would likely consider to be "bitter apostates" have fought and struggled to retain/regain their testimonies.

Do people become "bitter" just for kicks and giggles on a Saturday night, or does bitterness usually stem from feelings of betrayal and broken trust? I think you are showing how little you understand people who experience a faith crisis. I don't fault you for that because I think it would be impossible to know unless you've experienced the depth of loss associated with it, but I would suggest you try to show a little more empathy for people who have suffered a partial or full loss of faith.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you'd be surprised by how many "bitter apostate"(s) would LOVE a reconversion experience. How many have studied and prayed vigorously for such an experience, yet don't receive it? Many. You seem to think that people want to leave the religion they've dedicated their lives to and endure the damaging repercussions on their lives and relationships, when in my experience most people you would likely consider to be "bitter apostates" have fought and struggled to retain/regain their testimonies.

Do people become "bitter" just for kicks and giggles on a Saturday night, or does bitterness usually stem from feelings of betrayal and broken trust? I think you are showing how little you understand people who experience a faith crisis. I don't fault you for that because I think it would be impossible to know unless you've experienced the depth of loss associated with it, but I would suggest you try to show a little more empathy for people who have suffered a partial or full loss of faith.

I used the word “bitter” advisedly. Those I have in mind have made it abundantly clear through their words and actions that they want nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ other than to castigate, vilify and find fault — much like Alma the younger prior to his harsh three-day experience with the divine leading in to his change of heart and repentance. If I had a loved one who was in such a state, and I knew it would take such a harrowing experience to reclaim him or her, I would want it to happen. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[flameburns623]

She hasn't specified a date but Gina's Disciplinary Council will occur before Christmas.  

[Jeanne]

On 11/30/2018 at 9:21 PM, Tacenda said:

I sense that she is a good person as well. And I think a lot of members are finding it difficult to see her and others ex'd in the last few years for standing up for things. And not even committing grevious sins and such. Ran across this link on the other board. https://kutv.com/news/local/survey-commitment-of-of-lds-church-members-chilled-by-high-profile-excommunications

That was interesting...thank you.  I missed this.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you'd be surprised by how many "bitter apostate"(s) would LOVE a reconversion experience. How many have studied and prayed vigorously for such an experience, yet don't receive it? Many. You seem to think that people want to leave the religion they've dedicated their lives to and endure the damaging repercussions on their lives and relationships, when in my experience most people you would likely consider to be "bitter apostates" have fought and struggled to retain/regain their testimonies.

Do people become "bitter" just for kicks and giggles on a Saturday night, or does bitterness usually stem from feelings of betrayal and broken trust? I think you are showing how little you understand people who experience a faith crisis. I don't fault you for that because I think it would be impossible to know unless you've experienced the depth of loss associated with it, but I would suggest you try to show a little more empathy for people who have suffered a partial or full loss of faith.

This...To Scott...I prayed hard and my greatest desire at times was to get that voice...a change..any personal revelation that would redeem the faith of my childhood.  I wanted it and literally cried for that reconversion...any sign..even small that would help me stay.

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

This...To Scott...I prayed hard and my greatest desire at times was to get that voice...a change..any personal revelation that would redeem the faith of my childhood.  I wanted it and literally cried for that reconversion...any sign..even small that would help me stay.

And how was that going to happen when you deliberately associated with people whose goal is to drive people away from the church?