halconero

Getting It Right — Clarifying Claims About the Church Abuse Help Line This is a direct rebuttal by the Church of assertions made by Beau Oyler, a former bishop, regarding his experience using the Church abuse help line. Broadly speaking, Mr. Oyler alleges that the Church's primary focus was reassuring him that he didn't need to report the abuse, and that no concern was expressed regarding the family or informing law enforcement. The news release is worth a read, but put succinctly, the Church kept help line records, and outlines that he spoke with both an attorney and a licensed social worker three times over a three day period, and that, as part of these conversations, Mr. Oyler told help line personnel that both a third-party therapist and the perpetrator had reported the abuse to authorities. Furthermore, the social worker discussed steps to support the victim and family, and help line later followed-up with the stake president. Someone here can correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall the Church issuing a direct rebuttal like this in recent memory.

As the other resident Canadian here, I'm of two minds on the law and statement, but generally come down on the side of the Area Presidency. On the one hand, Duncan has accurately described the intended purpose of the law and scope. In that regard, I was somewhat surprised when they released the statement. On the other hand, I'm a bit skepitcal about the law because (a) Bloc Québécois shenangians (b) I'm not convinced it was necessary and (c) I do think there's been some scope creep at the Supreme Court of Canad over the past 10–15 years enabled by this sort of stuff. Some pretext: The main area of controvery the proposed nullification of s. 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code. This is a provision for a defence against criminal conviction for, materially, willfully promoting hatred (eg printing and distributing material promoting detestation/vilification of an identifiable group, such as Canadian Jewish people). The defence is based on 'good-faith religious opinion / religious text'. In other words, if someone was promoting hatred of an identifiable group, based on their good-faith religious opinon or good-faith use of a religious text, they could be protect for doing so. An important caveat is that 'good-faith' actually does a lot of legal work here: Someone could not just use religion as a pretext for promoting hatred; there had to be evidence of long-standing religious conviction and opinion consistent with various activities and beliefs, not just centred around hating a group. Importantly, this defence is not applicable to crimes including threats, harassment, counselling violence, assault, etc. The provision, if nullified, would mean religious opinion would be treated as any other expression: Defendable if the religious statements were relevant to the public interest/benefit, and if they were believed to be true on reasonable grounds. On a lesser note, the Bill also proposed to remove oversight by the Attorney General of hate crime provisions. Currently, prosecutors have to get the okay from the AG's office to pursue hate crime provisions to criminal activity. Bill C-9 would allow them to pursue these charges independently, with the purported purpose being able to more quickly apply hate crime charges. With that pretext, let's address point (a) first (Bloc shenanigans): There is a strong Quebec political culture focused around the concept of laïcité. There isn't really a good translation for the word, but 'public secularism' is probably the best (IMO). While others prefer 'state secularism', centred on ensuring that the state is areligious in its functions, applications of law, and symbolism, I think that's too limited. More strongly, it proposes that religion should not be protected, preferenced, or considered distinct from any other belief system or ideology. Weaker versions of laïcité focus on removing any distinct provisions for religious speech or belief that do not apply to other public speech or belief. Stronger versions seek to nullify it more completely from public life. While I don't hold to it personally, I do see the former as more internally consistent, at least. It allows for the public display of religiosity along side, lets say, political signage or apparel. The latter has a tendency to be okay with the latter, but not the former. The Criminal Code presents one area of law, where, the 'ROC' (a term used to refer to the 'Rest of Canada', or the predominantly anglophone parts) still inserts itself into Quebec. Most other legal matters are governed by Quebec Civil Law, which itself is highly laicised. In other terms, while religion has been stripped of certain legal considerations under Quebec Civil Law, they persist in federal criminal law. The Bloc has long considered it a priority to laicize the criminal code to make it align with Quebec political culture. On point (b), it's not particularly necessary: Of all the parts of the bill, I think the most necessary parts are reforms around penalty maximums and bail considerations. Those, however, are probably the least contraversial parts and the only that would really add anything to what already exists. Everything else, which primarily focuses on investigation and charging mechanisms, the religious defence, and oversight, is more-or-less already workable under the current Criminal Code. The key diference is that the Attorney General had oversight over applying hate crime considerations, and the existince of the religious defence provision for promoting hate speech. Even for the latter, the religious defence law was never a get out of jail free card. As mentioned, the defence only applied to the promotion of beliefs that might otherwise be considered hateful and liable. It did not apply to other criminal activity. It also had to be done in good faith. You could not create a whole movement whose raison d'être was hating another group and promoting said hatred against it. As to the former, I'm not sure the benefits of expediting prosecutions for hate crimes outweights the benefits of oversight by the AG. On point (c), SCC creep: Historically, the SCC was focused on refereeing disputes between the provinces and the feds regarding their division of powers and authorities. Since the establishment of the Charter, they've become increasingly focused on litigating rights. While this is in some ways laudible, it has had the effect of overloading the SCC with cases unrelated to its original mission of adjudicating disputes over federalism. It also introduces possibilities for them to act like quasi-legislative body, undermining the already somewhat diminished concept of parliamentary supremacy. ----------- Overall, I'm not a sky is falling type of person over Bill C-9, which I've seen in other members of my ward. Nor do I think the Area Presidency are acting as such. The Bill does actually contain some good provisions, which I think could be hashed out in committee. The big sticking points are the redundancies and protections from its laicizing tendencies.

I've actually gotten out of the habit of using the term 'Mormon' in a self-referential way, and have, over time developed a habit of referring to myself as a Latter-day Saint or member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I like it, and will be probably keep doing so. That said, there is a middle ground, which is that I haven't been particularly shy about using 'Mormon' to bridge people between a term with which they're more likely familiar, to one the I use personally. I think refusing to acknowledge or refer to 'Mormon' as an external term of reference presently and an internal term of reference historically wasn't particularly helpful.

I have a genetic predisposition to high cholestorol and was recommended to begin a daily fibre supplement apart from dietary changes. Having tried Metamucil and other psyllium husk fibres, I much prefer barley-based beta-glucan fibre powders. They're relatively new, and are focused on reducing cholestorl versus bowel regularity. They're water soluable, which makes them mix better into water, feel 'lighter' and less thick than psyllium husk powder, and don't have 'bulking' properties (ie they don't produce massive bowel movements). Don't get me wrong, they do help with regularity, but it's effects are much less extreme. I use NutraStat, which is Canada based. I believe their US affiliate is Cerabeta. Its ingrendient list is boringly plain (in a good way): Just barley beta-glucan and barley. You'd have to hunt around for it in the UK, but just a quick search turns up beneo (based in Germany).

I'm fond of Gerrit Dirkmaat's repeated reminder that we don't need to all evidence board/conspiracy wall to know how to prepare for the Second Coming; the prophets already tell us what we need to do. Last I checked, they were admonishing us on the specifics of becoming better disciples of Christ.

Gerrit Dirkmaat has repeatedly pointed out a tendency among members of the Church regarding the possession of secret knowledge outside of or even contrary to that given by the General Authorities and Officers of the Church. Typically, this involves some sort of special preparation for the Second Coming, either involving belief in some sort of esoteric doctrine, or prepper or prepper-like activities. I would suggest that Tim Ballard's work with O.U.R. generally, and this specifically, display the same tendency. I've shared this before on this board, but years ago I worked in an area in which a (very small) of my job description involved anti-human trafficking activities, with a specific focus on labour trafficking. As part of this, I attended quarterly meetings with the main anti-human trafficking body in my province, where we discussed trends in human trafficking, including sex trafficking, and efforts to combat these. As I've stated elsewhere, most of this work was exceedingly banal. Around 90% of the work I did was from behind a desk, with the other 10% involving me getting out from behind my desk to go to an other organization's office to get the people there to do things from behind their desks. I only ever had to involve police once; not for a raid, but to escort someone to retrieve a passport. Almost all the work was done through similarly banal activities. The type of human trafficking shown in The Sound of Freedom, where children are disappeared contrary to the desires of their parents into faraway clubs or jungle camps, exists, but only as a caricature. The vast majority of trafficking cases involve some measure of coerced consent by the trafficked, typically using social, financial, or romantic pressures. Just to be clear, that is not me blaming the victims. Rather, it is me point out that human traffickers typically find it less costly to use a combination of carrots and non-physical sticks to traffic someone. Virginia Giuffre of Jeff Epstein fame is a typical example of this. She wasn't bundled into a van; she was offered a job, paid travel, and (fake) job training as a professional massage therapist. No one rescued here; she rescued herself, which, by the way, is often the most common way people exist trafficking. In 100% of the cases I worked with, it was a victim coming forward after deciding they'd had enough, and seeking resources to sort out the practicalities of leaving their situation. The problem with the SoF and O.U.R. was the explicit and insinuated idea that cases like Giuffre were overshadowed by a much larger cabal of international networks, and that the solution was a series of fantastic raids, instead of things like regularizing visa status, easier access to economic resources, and interventions into media communications involving adolescents. In reality, less than 0.3% of childhood abductions involve strangers. Of these, most are committed by lone individuals with sexual or personal motives (e.g., a mentally ill woman abducting an infant to raise personally), not organized rings randomly picking children off the street or from photoshoots. Even in these much more limited cases, it is still true that the victim often willingly goes with the trafficker at first. Regarding Ballard's accusations specifically, its a truism that the Gospel must be true, otherwise the Church must have collapsed years ago. I've served in leadership callings where we had to coordinate legal issues with the area authority, particularly around a disaffected member. At every moment, those authorities emphasized a bottom-up approach. They offered to support us with legal counsel, security, or personal support as needed, even as they asked us again and again, what we recommended from a disciplinary standpoint. I can't tell you how many times I ended conversations sincerely hoping that they'd offer more specific direction on how to act or what to do, but at each point, I was kindly and gently supported in developing my own thoughts, opinions, and, above all, guidance from the Lord. I can tell you that that is almost certainly how Tim Ballard's case was handled at the stake level. Oh, and the part about the high councilman defending him? Well yeah, that's literally how it works: This wasn't some maverick high council member bucking against the stake president; it's just how high councils work. Whatever the truth of the story regarding the painting crashing down, I know if I were the one giving that defence, and a picture of the Saviour came crashing down, it wouldn't someone indicate to me that I was in the right. In either case, circling back to the point I raised by Gerrit Dirkmaat: for some segment of members, the simplest explanation, often supported by doctrine and Church leadership, is somehow never enough. It can't be that human trafficking is primarily caused by frictions in various legal and social systems; there has to be cabal out there that can be one-shotted. It can't be that Tim Ballard was inappropriately using financial resources and inappropriately name dropping Church leaders in a manner that has been repeated by unscrupulous grifters since time immemorial; it has to be the deep church represented by a particular spokesperson who, for whatever reason, cannot be controlled by the Church leaders (either because they've somehow lost control or because they're in on it). And when they think about the Second Coming, it cannot be that our best preparation for it is personal righteousness, service to others, missionary work, and worship in the temple, despite those being the very things that the prophets have told us will prepare us for the past ten or so years! No, instead, the secret juice must be contained in a Telegram thread that has absorbed more time than my ministering route has for the past five years (not hard, because the amount of time devoted to that ministering route is effectively '0'). Guess what? To the extent that secret combinations do explain so much misery in the world, we already know how to combat them from the examples given in the Book of Mormon: missionary work to the lower rungs of those heeding them and confidence in God's prophets to direct us as needed. There isn't a secret extra step!

I don't see any reason why a French apostle would be Caussé for alarm.

I'm genuinely open to having my understanding corrected. Could you help me understand how the second agenda item is supported by the text in Abraham 3:27-28?

Me too.

I'm getting back to the rest of this now, as all I had time for yesterday was my above quip from my adventures as an animorph. I have found the experience enlightening. There is a phrase in one of our teaching manuals in the Church that each commandment of God teaches us something about His nature. I considered that, if the Law of Moses and its sacrifices were types and shadows of Christ, then they must tech us something about Him and His own sacrifice. There is yet much to learn, but it is fascinating to me how they expiate and mediate the depth and breadth of human experience, including individual and collective sin, thanksgiving, joy, mourning, and covenant cutting. If, then, these tell us something about the Atonement, it signifies a wider and deeper application than punishment alone. Yes, wholeheartedly. I'm not even sure penal justice is a useful term to be honest, insofar as we keep applying concepts related to retribution and deterrence related to our civil and common law legal systems to them. If, indeed, we can foreshadow Christ in the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, then it stands to reason that He is both scapegoat and the goat that remains to be offered up to God. To the extent that justice is exemplified in the former, its purpose is not vengeance or deterrence, but to cut off and remove from ourselves that which prevents us from communing with God. I suppose that may be termed a penalty, but it serves a very different function (at least to me) than appeasing God or avoiding His judgment. In many ways, it is a plea to be judged, to welcome communion and leadership with the Judge of all Israel, and to prepare ourselves to be in His presence by casting away the old self. To the extent that it is applied to the unrepentant, it is only because they refuse God's offer to go into the wilderness Himself and carry their sins away from the camp of their own life; He will not force anyone to withstand His presence that does not want to be there, which, interestingly, is a mercy itself to those that refuse to be near Him. And while the casting away may involve suffering (see Jesus' cry about being forsaken by God), I don't think that's the suffering we most commonly think of when we ponder the Atonement, which tends to focus instead on His blood, stripes, and death (as well as the additional weight Latter-day Saints provide to His experience starting in Gethsemane). That, in my opinion, relates far more to the Old Testament purpose of the shedding of blood, and the New Testament term "kenosis," or the self-emptying of Jesus. It is Jesus choosing to experience, heal, and then consecrate life to God. This life, as mediated by Him, is not only His, but ours, if we let Him. In the Old Testament, this is typified not only by the sharing of identity between the one offering sacrifice and the sacrifice itself, but the priest also sharing in the communal meal, whose eating of the sin offering (whose purpose, again, isn't to punish, but to restore) mediates and heals the vicarious offerer as symbolized by digestion. Thus Jesus is both the Lamb and High Priest of God, taking into Himself our lives, mediating them, and, as part of this, emptying His life in consecration to the Most High. All that is to say that Jesus' suffering, in my opinion, deals far more with the internalization, purification, and the pouring out/consecration of life to God. We, then, are invited (by Paul specifically, but also ours) to identify with and eagerly seek to emulate Him, so that our life becomes His life, and His life becomes our life. I agree wholeheartedly. It helps me understand that justice, as God sees it, is a relationship with His people. A relationship with God is the just ordering the of the universe and the reason for which it was created. Being cast off is an aberration of that, which God undertook not to punish, but because only God as Christ had the capacity and ability to simultaneously be cast off and be the means of reconciliation. In other words, He fixes the aberration; the aberration is not a goal in itself. Mercy, then, doesn't compete with justice, but is the pathway to justice in the manner that God desires, which is to be among us and with us. If, then, only Christ can simultaneously be the one cast off and the one to reconcile or be reconciled; or, put another way, only Christ can reconcile God to Himself, while casting away sin, how can we do the same? I might suggest it is by become as Him, or as Paul puts it: So then, brothers and sisters, we are obligated, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 it is that very Spirit bearing witness[m] with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs: heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if we in fact suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. This, in many ways, gets us close to the classical articulation of theosis, as our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters might put it. While Latter-day Saints, because of our doctrine on exaltation, extend this further, I do think there is value in considering how we might experience suffering and glory with the Son of God, who, as scapegoat, goes off into exile carrying our sins; who, as lamb, offers up a pure life; who, as priest, mediates whatever suffering prevents communion; and who, as God, accepts and receives us into Him, that we might enjoy communion with Him. There is beautiful culmination in all of this, typified by one of the most ancient and simplest of human practices, typified by the sacrament (or Eucharist, as you would say): sitting down, dividing, and sharing a meal together.

In Abraham 3:24 there is a reference to one "like unto God": 24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; The Hebrew name Michael, translated, means "who is like God" or "who is like God?". The proponents of this theory suggest that this character is the same as the one referenced a few verses later in 27–28: 27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first. 28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him. For what it's worth, I don't think the logic holds. For one, this is a council setting; there is no evidence in the text itself that one character necessarily represents another character. Even more simply, the phrase "like unto the Son of Man" is distinct from "like unto God," and has no comparable name in Hebrew (it would be something like 'מִיכְבֶןאָדָם' (Mi-ke-ven-adam)). The premise of the argument is predicated on these two council members being the same person, which I don't think can be supported by the text alone. Even if, however, we were to allow greater exegetical reasoning, I'm not convinced it would strengthen the argument, but weaken it: in Latter-day Saint doctrine, Michael is "Man/Adam," not the "Son of Man," a term which applies to both Jesus specifically, and humanity specifically (as Adam's mortal descendants).

I was a cat, but I got better.

If I can throw out another possibility here: the shedding of Christ's blood may not have been the aspect of the atonement that most relates to justice for sin, at least in the way we've come to conceive in Western European thought. Rather, it more specifically completes the restoration of life and communion with God in a fashion we term mercy, specifically a mercy that is, again, on tangentially related to western, modern concepts of mercy. To back up a bit, Latter-day Saints sometimes (unfairly, in my opinion) suggest that Nicene Christianity was mostly the product of Greek Philosophy. I would suggest that our common conceptualization of justice and mercy, inherited from Protestantism specifically, is far more infected with Roman legal theory than the Trinity is with Greek metaphysics. While both Reformers, John Calvin differed greatly from Luther in their pre-Reformation training, which likewise infused their beliefs around sin, grace, mercy, and justice. John Calvin, in particular, drew on his training as a lawyer in France to inform his beliefs. His legal thesis: written just prior to or early on in his conversion to Protestant thinking, focuses on Roman civil law and the application of punishment and clemency in relation to sin. From there, it's easy to see how he developed a forensic view of the atonement that has persisted with us ever since. Don't get me wrong, I do believe justice and mercy are concepts intimately tied to Jesus Christ and His atonement. Likewise, I know court room analogies exist in the scriptures, including the image of Christ as our Advocate (i.e., lawyer) with the Father. Conversely, the same word that intuits a court room setting in one context, may have a different meaning in another. For example, consider how the title "judge" differs between its use in the Hebrew Bible from the modern idea of what a judge is. In a similar regard, I think it's worthwhile to consider how justice and mercy were conceptualized anciently, and how the Israelite systems relate to both. Take, for instance, the observation that animal sacrifice never functioned (at least to my knowledge) as vicarious punishment for sin. The penitent individual would indeed bring the animal to the congregation of the tabernacle or temple, and lay their hands on the animal, but this was not about transferring guilt to it; rather, it was about identifying with the animal. Sin was punished, but not through the shedding of blood. Collectively, it was punished on Yom Kippur by the selection of Azazel, the scapegoat, whose name has one of the most interesting and debated origins among scholars, with possibilities including "wilderness goat," "goat for the rough place," "the sent away/removed," or even, "The Mighty God," or "God removes." Azazel is led away from the congregation of Israel, cut off from its presence, and sent away into the wilderness, thus removing sin from God's presence. Individually, sin was punished by collecting the dung of a sacrificed animal, and, again, removing it from the presence of the congregation and burning it away from the presence of God. In both instance, the chief mechanism for 'punishing' sin is a proxy cutting off, not the shedding of blood. So, what does the shedding of blood do? At least in the Israelite sacrificial model, it is actually the vicarious consecration of life unto God. There is a little noticed, but oft repeated idea in the Old Testament that life is in the blood. Even once sin is removed vicariously from the penitent, man or woman does not yet enjoy the presence of God. To do so, a few things have to happen. One of these is the offering of a consecrated life unto God. Yet the penitent man or woman is (a) not capable of offering a pure life unto God and (b) not capable of offering their own life without dying. So, the penitent offers a pure life unto God, vicariously. That pure life may be sprinkled on that altar, offered up as smoke unto God (i.e., God takes that life into himself), and even used to anoint the penitent. The second aspect is to enjoy a covenant meal with God. Only in rare instances does ancient Hebrew speak of creating, establishing, or entering into covenants. The correct term, translated literally into English, is to cut or divide a covenant, in exactly the same way that a dear father carves the turkey at Thanksgiving to divide among the family. If that seems odd, consider how Abram and God establish covenant with each other, or how Moses prepares the Elders of Israel to see God. Thus, the meat of the covenant is shared between God (through smoke of the sacrifice), His priests, and people, who all share in the meal together.* Justice, in the above framework, is not focused on punishing sin, but on restoring correct order and relationships. It is, for example, no coincidence that the Hebrew word for justice (Tze-dek) shares the same root with charity (Tzedak-ah) and righteousness (Tzad-dik). The punishing of sin isn't to pay a divine debt, but its expurgation from our lives and presence, so that God may restore justice through mercy. Mediation, in this context, is not the reconciling of justice with mercy; mercy is the mediator. The consecration of life and the dividing of the covenant is the mercy of God. If any of the above, then, has relation to Jesus' sacrifice, it turns a whole lot of what we know on its head. His agony, bleeding, and suffering for the sins and traumas of the world was not Him suffering punishment. Rather, it was an exertion to break himself in heart and spirit in pouring out His life and self on our behalf, to offer up the ultimate in a consecrated life unto God, and, in turn apply that consecrated life to ourselves. If he thus stand between us and justice, it is not to evade its application, but, as mercy Himself, to mediate our return to justice in the proper relationship and frame. Put another way, only He could affect the sort of restorative justice that we desire, being both the scapegoat cut off from the presence of God on our behalf, and the goat whose blood sanctified our place in the presence of and order of God. *I have wondered, recently, to what extent the sacrament serves a similar function, in which we offer up our hearts and spirit on the altars of the Church. Christ then takes these, and, through His atonement, offers up a pure life on our behalf. The covenant is cut anew through the division of the body and blood of the Lamb of God, and a meal shared among the congregation to represent communion with God.

I haven't had the time I'd like to participate in threads like these lately, and my own reply here will likely be lacking in several unsatisfying ways (to me at least). To preface, this is a great topic, and one that consumes the majority of my own study and pondering over the scriptures for the past year or so. My succinct answer is that yes, Latter-day Saints are quite free to explore the 'why' as well as the 'how' of the Son's passion, death, and, if I may add, His resurrection. I have personally seen an evolution in thought during my own lifetime in this regard. For example, one of the most famous discourses in my own childhood was "The Mediator," by Boyd K. Packer. This particular emphasis on the atonement was, in my opinion, the dominant model of my childhood and youth. Similar to the template you outlined, common among Protestantism, it focuses on the payment of our spiritual debt to God by His Son. Now? I would suggest that the current model taught by most general authorities is the "enabling atonement," which comprises both healing from sin and suffering, and sanctification of the penitent (i.e., enabling the believer to grow into a superabundance, as you might say, of righteousness, love, and goodness). As you noted in your own experience relating Catholic and Protestant views on the passion and death of Christ, this view of atonement does not conflict with a model wherein Jesus satisfies God's wrath, while still asking us how oneness with God goes beyond payment of sin. In either sense, it is an evolution, and suggests there is room to explore a core question that may be summarized as "what think ye of Christ?" In fact, I might go as far to say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides wider latitude than most denominations to explore this question due to the fact that we may, in fact, lack a systematic, doctrinal theory of Christ's passion. That is not to say we lack specific observations we consider "doctrinal," in the sense that to be a member in good standing you must affirm them; specifically, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Only Begotten Son of God, that He suffered and died for the sins and pains of humanity (and possibly all creation), and that He arose on the third day into immortality. Nor is to say that we lack proposed systems for why this was necessary or how it was done. It does, however, mean that we do not bind any particular prophet, apostle, or lay member to any one explanation of these. In my opinion, this lack of a dogmatic explanation or explanations is a feature, not a bug, which invites members individually to ponder God and His Christ, and allows the General Authorities to adapt explanations to the capacities and pastoral needs of the members.

Interesting. My experience was time bound (2010–2012) and geography bound (Arizona). I wouldn't be surprised if there was variation at the state level or by years.