Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I do think there is a certain amount of (positive) peer pressure to attend the temple as a youth, and a temple recommend interview is going to be part and parcel with that.

What I was mainly pointing out though is that, because interviews are voluntary, I don't think it's fair to construe them as being an invasion of privacy.

If I voluntarily attend an interview which is designed to ascertain my worthiness, I don't think I should get to then turn around and claim that it's invasion of my privacy when the interviewer actually asks questions designed to determine whether or not I am, in fact, worthy.

 

Many youth are not given the option by their parents.  So it isn’t necessarily voluntary for them.  But that is the parents’ decision.

For parents, they get to voluntarily choose to have their children participate fully in church.  But to @Calm’s point... if you want your family to be fully participating in church, these interviews are NOT voluntary.

To suggest that youth interviews are entirely voluntary for active, faithful church members is to ignore the reality of how the church operates.  Without interviews your children cannot be baptized, advance in YW/Priesthood, go on ward youth temple trips, receive patriarchal blessings, graduate from seminary, or serve a mission.  

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I do think there is a certain amount of (positive) peer pressure to attend the temple as a youth, and a temple recommend interview is going to be part and parcel with that.

What I was mainly pointing out though is that, because interviews are voluntary, I don't think it's fair to construe them as being an invasion of privacy.

If I voluntarily attend an interview which is designed to ascertain my worthiness, I don't think I should get to then turn around and claim that it's invasion of my privacy when the interviewer actually asks questions designed to determine whether or not I am, in fact, worthy.

 

Wow, lots of control is given over to this church that I didn't see before.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:
Quote

I do think there is a certain amount of (positive) peer pressure to attend the temple as a youth, and a temple recommend interview is going to be part and parcel with that.

What I was mainly pointing out though is that, because interviews are voluntary, I don't think it's fair to construe them as being an invasion of privacy.

If I voluntarily attend an interview which is designed to ascertain my worthiness, I don't think I should get to then turn around and claim that it's invasion of my privacy when the interviewer actually asks questions designed to determine whether or not I am, in fact, worthy.

Wow, lots of control is given over to this church that I didn't see before.

Actually, very little control is given over to the Church.

Association with the Church is bilaterally voluntary.  The Church has only that control which I choose to allow it to have.  That's mighty weak tea, totalitarianism-wise.

Provo City, Utah County, the State of Utah, and the Federal Government all have all sorts of "control" over my life.  I have very little say in how much I pay in taxes, whether my house will be condemned via eminent domain, the rates I pay for my electricity, and on and on and on.

However, I have all sorts of say in terms of whether I attend Church meetings, pay tithing, adhere to the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity, obtain and use a temple recommend, teach my children the precepts of the Restored Gospel, and on and on and one.

The Church's authority over me in a practical sense is almost purely a matter of faith.  See D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

Per its own scripture, the only thing that the Church "controls" in my life is my membership in it.

I have some relatives, whom I love dearly, who have recently left the Church.  They made the choice, and they withdrew.  The Church did nothing about it.  The Church couldn't do anything to stop it, because the Church has no "control" over them.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, lots of control is given over to this church that I didn't see before.

How's the church doing in controlling you?

Are they forcing you to pay tithing?

Are they forcing you into interviews?

Forcing you to attend meetings?

In my part of the world the church doesn't seem to have the whole control thing down like they apparently do where you are. We can't even get everyone to do their ministering visits.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

How's the church doing in controlling you?

Are they forcing you to pay tithing?

Are they forcing you into interviews?

Forcing you to attend meetings?

In my part of the world the church doesn't seem to have the whole control thing down like they apparently do where you are. We can't even get everyone to do their ministering visits.

As an outlier I just thought the control happened in the worthiness interview, and hadn't realized how strong that was in the process. You and others won't realize it either unless you stepped away.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

As an outlier I just thought the control happened in the worthiness interview, and hadn't realized how strong that was in the process. You and others won't realize it either unless you stepped away.

Wasn't strong enough to keep you in.  You must be exceptionally strong.  

Please have pity for those of us who are not strong enough to resist.

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

As an outlier I just thought the control happened in the worthiness interview, and hadn't realized how strong that was in the process. You and others won't realize it either unless you stepped away.

So all it takes to resist the purported "control" of the Church is to "step away?"

Perhaps this is more an issue of semantics.  You say "control," but what you mean is "influence"

But then, claiming that the Church has influence over our lives is far less effective in making the Church out to be menacing, totalitarian, domineering, horrible, etc.

The Church is, in the end, quite mild in the exercise of its ecclesiastical authority.  And it specifically disclaims any other sort of authority.  Again, from D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

The only thing in our lives that the Church "controls" is our membership in it.  And even then, there are protocols and safeguards pertaining to the protection of that membership.  And the Church resorts to terminating membership on a very, very rare basis.

Sorry, but your narrative isn't working here.  

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So all it takes to resist the purported "control" of the Church is to "step away?"

Perhaps this is more an issue of semantics.  You say "control," but what you mean is "influence"

But then, claiming that the Church has influence over our lives is far less effective in making the Church out to be menacing, totalitarian, domineering, horrible, etc.

The Church is, in the end, quite mild in the exercise of its ecclesiastical authority.  And it specifically disclaims any other sort of authority.  Again, from D&C 134:10:

The only thing in our lives that the Church "controls" is our membership in it.  And even then, there are protocols and safeguards pertaining to the protection of that membership.  And the Church resorts to terminating membership on a very, very rare basis.

Sorry, but your narrative isn't working here.  

-Smac

Nevermind

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Many youth are not given the option by their parents.  So it isn’t necessarily voluntary for them.  But that is the parents’ decision.

Lots of areas of a child's life are influenced by parents, but that doesn't mean those actions suddenly become non-voluntary.

I've never seen a parent have to drag their child, kicking and screaming, into a temple recommend interview.

 

Quote

For parents, they get to voluntarily choose to have their children participate fully in church.  

I'm not sure what this means. When I think of 'full participation' in church, I envision a model child - one who reads the scriptures, participates in class / quorum activities, and willingly does all of the other little things that go along with living the gospel.

Yet, when I look at every ward I have ever lived in, I see plenty of youth fall into inactivity and leave the church.

That's too bad. I suppose somebody should have told those parents how easy that situation is to avoid - you just have to 'voluntarily choose to have [your] children participate fully in the church.' Easy-peasy.

 

Quote

But to [Calm]’s point... if you want your family to be fully participating in church, these interviews are NOT voluntary.

They're not elective, but they most certainly are voluntary.

If you want to obtain X, and X is conditioned upon Y, you are still voluntarily pursuing Y - even if you are only doing so as a means of achieving X. 

Think of it like buying a house. You might not want to sign a mortgage, but if you don't have enough cash to purchase a home outright then you'll have to take out a loan in order to secure the property.

You don't have to purchase a house. But if you do want to purchase a house then taking out a mortgage is going to be necessary.

By your logic though, taking out a loan then would be non-voluntary.

But that's obviously not the case.

You voluntarily decided to take out the loan because you wanted to get what came from it - just like youth voluntarily participate in things like temple recommend interviews, so they can get what comes from those.

 

Quote

To suggest that youth interviews are entirely voluntary for active, faithful church members is to ignore the reality of how the church operates.  

My children are active, faithful church members.

To date, none of them have ever had a problem with voluntarily participating in the interview process (which, for us, has only involved baptism and temple recommend interviews thus far). 

 

Quote

Without interviews your children cannot be baptized, advance in YW/Priesthood, go on ward youth temple trips, receive patriarchal blessings, graduate from seminary, or serve a mission.  

Sure. And without a drivers license you can't operate a vehicle on public roads.

And without a passport you can't travel to a foreign country.

And without a sense of humor you can't avoid being called to serve on the High Council.

But if you want to drive a car, I think it's silly to say that getting a license isn't voluntary. 

 

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Amulek said:

f I voluntarily attend an interview which is designed to ascertain my worthiness, I don't think I should get to then turn around and claim that it's invasion of my privacy when the interviewer actually asks questions designed to determine whether or not I am, in fact, worthy.

The question of invasion, imo, arises if an interview goes beyond the usual limits to determine worthiness.  I agree asking if someone is following the law of Chastity would not be an invasion of privacy anymore than if someone was asking a doctor for a prescription of birth control and they asked as part of their effort to meet the needs of their patient if they were sexually active or planning to be or maybe even how often as that would affect what might be the best form for them.  Otoh, it would be an invasion of privacy imo if the doctor started asking about where the patient was finding their sexual partners or what types of foreplay they engaged in, etc. even if that might help the doctor know what the patient might need better (suggest using various safe sex practices).  

Some bishops may believe it is appropriate to ask questions simply because they do pertain to worthiness, but those questions may be unnecessary.  And if unnecessary, then they qualify imo as invasion of privacy If about private matters.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Association with the Church is bilaterally voluntary.  The Church has only that control which I choose to allow it to have. 

When it comes to children, association is not always voluntary.  But I see that as the parents controlling the children, not the Church.  There is no way for the Church to force the children to participate, it is the parents who might do that.  The Church can stop participation, but not force it to happen imo.

And while I do think there are parents who force participation, I don't believe the Church supports that approach for Church if it gets to the abusive stage (I don't think the Church would have a problem with most parents of a young teen telling them "you are coming to church and there will be no argument" kind of thing, they would have a problem if the parent chose to enforce that with hitting the kid though).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

When it comes to children, association is not always voluntary.  But I see that as the parents controlling the children, not the Church.  There is no way for the Church to force the children to participate, it is the parents who might do that.  The Church can stop participation, but not force it to happen imo.

This.  This is what I was trying to get at earlier but, as usual, you said it better and more succinctly.  

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You and others won't realize it either unless you stepped away.

Yikes, Tacenda.  Do you realize how arrogant that sounds?  I am sure you don't intend it to be. And for the record - I hear this all the time from my family who have left the church - somehow, those who stay are just blinded by their need to believe, and we are oh so desperate, naive, and simple-minded.  If only we could see how miserable we should be for being sooooo manipulated - but alas, we are but poor rubes...

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

Yikes, Tacenda.  Do you realize how arrogant that sounds?  I am sure you don't intend it to be. And for the record - I hear this all the time from my family who have left the church - somehow, those who stay are just blinded by their need to believe, and we are oh so desperate, naive, and simple-minded.  If only we could see how miserable we should be for being sooooo manipulated - but alas, we are but poor rubes...

 

You're right I didn't mean for that to sound like it did. I meant that being on the outside would be the only way for me to feel that way. While all in it never dawned on me. That is just my take away, should have honed in on that only.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

Yikes, Tacenda.  Do you realize how arrogant that sounds?  I am sure you don't intend it to be. And for the record - I hear this all the time from my family who have left the church - somehow, those who stay are just blinded by their need to believe, and we are oh so desperate, naive, and simple-minded.  If only we could see how miserable we should be for being sooooo manipulated - but alas, we are but poor rubes...

 

I agree with you here. I've also heard similar things from other former Mormons.  It reminds me of how LDS leaders talk about former members....ie.  their minds become darkened and confused...they no longer have the superior intelligence bestowed to those who obey the gospel...they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened...they experience darkness, ignorance..., etc.

Statements (from whichever side) like this are arrogant and have a belittling effect on the 'others' which only serves to further the divide whether intended or not.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Amulek said:

Neither are doctor visits, dentist appointments, school attendance, eating vegetables, or any number of other things which might be good for them. 

 

Right. And we tend to hold doctors and teachers (and even vegetables) to strict legal/medical/professional standards in relation to how they interact with patients and children.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Amulek said:

I do think there is a certain amount of (positive) peer pressure to attend the temple as a youth, and a temple recommend interview is going to be part and parcel with that.

What I was mainly pointing out though is that, because interviews are voluntary, I don't think it's fair to construe them as being an invasion of privacy.

If I voluntarily attend an interview which is designed to ascertain my worthiness, I don't think I should get to then turn around and claim that it's invasion of my privacy when the interviewer actually asks questions designed to determine whether or not I am, in fact, worthy.

 

It's hard to argue with that when a person is old enough to consent.

But when they're a minor, how old do they need to be to able to consent? How can a church or parent know that a child really is going into an interview fully-informed and understanding that they will be asked to disclose private information?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, cacheman said:

I agree with you here. I've also heard similar things from other former Mormons.  It reminds me of how LDS leaders talk about former members....ie.  their minds become darkened and confused...they no longer have the superior intelligence bestowed to those who obey the gospel...they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened...they experience darkness, ignorance..., etc.

Statements (from whichever side) like this are arrogant and have a belittling effect on the 'others' which only serves to further the divide whether intended or not.

I feel like I'm right back at the table of a recent card game with my husband's brothers and their wives.

We've been on vacation in Moab and every night they like to play card games. We were playing a game I'd only played once before called, "Wizard". When I'd throw a dumb card out or when I didn't know the scoring process I got some harsh judgement. I have been used to this for years, but the final straw was when it was this comment, "you call yourself a sub?". I sub in the school district. I've never been so hurt before. And I understand why Jesus hung out with sinners on occasion. They are so judgemental sometimes, whether it be a nephew's hairstyle or a set of clothes my children wore in the past.

Now you're telling me I'm darkened and ignorant too. 

BTW, the next morning was all business, and going to church in Moab. But I have never felt worse around the LDS, then having my extended family treat me like that. It's usually the BIL's but none of my SIL's stuck up for me, nor my husband, sadly.

I'm very sorry if you felt belittled, I shouldn't have said what I did, I should know better, especially after how I was treated.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I feel like I'm right back at the table of a recent card game with my husband's brothers and their wives.

We've been on vacation in Moab and every night they like to play card games. We were playing a game I'd only played once before called, "Wizard". When I'd throw a dumb card out or when I didn't know the scoring process I got some harsh judgement. I have been used to this for years, but the final straw was when it was this comment, "you call yourself a sub?". I sub in the school district. I've never been so hurt before. And I understand why Jesus hung out with sinners on occasion. They are so judgemental sometimes, whether it be a nephew's hairstyle or a set of clothes my children wore in the past.

Now you're telling me I'm darkened and ignorant too. 

You are reading him wrong. He was saying that when members do it they are as arrogant and belittling as people who have left the church and do it to church members. That both sides are wrong to do it.

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

BTW, the next morning was all business, and going to church in Moab. But I have never felt worse around the LDS, then having my extended family treat me like that. It's usually the BIL's but none of my SIL's stuck up for me, nor my husband, sadly.

I'm very sorry if you felt belittled, I shouldn't have said what I did, I should know better, especially after how I was treated.

 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I feel like I'm right back at the table of a recent card game with my husband's brothers and their wives.

We've been on vacation in Moab and every night they like to play card games. We were playing a game I'd only played once before called, "Wizard". When I'd throw a dumb card out or when I didn't know the scoring process I got some harsh judgement. I have been used to this for years, but the final straw was when it was this comment, "you call yourself a sub?". I sub in the school district. I've never been so hurt before. And I understand why Jesus hung out with sinners on occasion. They are so judgemental sometimes, whether it be a nephew's hairstyle or a set of clothes my children wore in the past.

Now you're telling me I'm darkened and ignorant too. 

BTW, the next morning was all business, and going to church in Moab. But I have never felt worse around the LDS, then having my extended family treat me like that. It's usually the BIL's but none of my SIL's stuck up for me, nor my husband, sadly.

I'm very sorry if you felt belittled, I shouldn't have said what I did, I should know better, especially after how I was treated.

Hi Tacenda,

I think you misunderstood me.  I don't think you're 'darkened and ignorant'. I'm not the best writer,  and I apologize if my writing was unclear. I was simply trying to demonstrate that LDS leaders have described exmembers (like myself) in much the same way as some exmormons describe church members.  I think both sides need to be careful in how they characterize others. 

I appreciate the fact that you clarified what you meant by your earlier post.  I would have liked that post if there was a 'like' button on your posts. 

I'm sorry you've experienced harsh judgement from others.  I enjoy reading your posts,  even if i might disagree with something now and then.  I feel that you are very open and transparent about yourself on this board.  I respect that. 

 

Edited by cacheman
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Hi Tacenda,

I think you misunderstood me.  I don't think you're 'darkened and ignorant'. I'm not the best writer,  and I apologize if my writing was unclear. I was simply trying to demonstrate that LDS leaders have described exmembers (like myself) in much the same way as some exmormons describe church members.  I think both sides need to be careful in how they characterize others. 

I appreciate the fact that you clarified what you meant by your earlier post.  I would have liked that post if there was a 'like' button on your posts. 

I'm sorry you've experienced harsh judgement from others.  I enjoy reading your posts,  even if i might disagree with something now and then.  I feel that you are very open and transparent about yourself on this board.  I respect that. 

 

No, you wrote it fine. It was my reading of it that was wrong.

Just a thought on the church's belief of post mormons...I'm still a member and do remember statements like this from the brethren or members.

And with my faith not being what it was I look in the mirror and do think the light has gone, but realized it's because of the phase people go through where they feel lost, because the church and culture is all they'd known and now it's nowhere land and figuring out where they belong and is a very dark period of time.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Right. And we tend to hold doctors and teachers (and even vegetables) to strict legal/medical/professional standards in relation to how they interact with patients and children.

Bishops are held to a pretty high standard as well.

I hear about incidents of abuse much more frequently within the medical and academic professions than I do within the church. Some of that is likely do the there just being so many more of them (i.e., medical professionals / teachers). I would be interested in seeing per capita data on misconduct, but I suspect LDS Bishops would fare pretty well on such a comparison.

 

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Bishops are held to a pretty high standard as well.

I hear about incidents of abuse much more frequently within the medical and academic professions than I do within the church. Some of that is likely do the there just being so many more of them (i.e., medical professionals / teachers). I would be interested in seeing per capita data on misconduct, but I suspect LDS Bishops would fare pretty well on such a comparison.

 

What is in your opinion the standard of conduct of bishops and how is it enforced? 

Do you not see an issue in the difference between the three: medical professionals, teachers, and bishops which might hinder reporting? I would think that it can be more difficult to report misconduct when both parties share the same social group, and wards are inherently a social group.

 

 

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

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