Notatbm

Token? No which thing. They just pick their friends. Well if they have not changed their minds and pick one just because we need a black one then that may be what it is. They would have to tell us that though. The whole notion the lord is picking pretty much with white dudes from the morridor is a bit ridiculous. why would I “deal “ with or care about a 70? They really are not anyone or are the face of the church. this is the face of the church and it isn’t very representative of its demographics except all the white ones. We can do better, but sadly probably won’t.

You are both right and wrong. Here is how I personally am informed: I was raised in an uber / hardliner Mormon home in a connected Mormon family. Connected enough that my father personally knew more than a few apostles (during 70s-very early 90s). Some of those guys are still there. I met pretty much all of them during that time period to include Peterson who now that I know what I know I should have knocked him out. Anyway we all know about all the statements, policies, doctrines etc re Blacks, Native Americans et al. When I was growing up that was taught to us in primary, Sunday school and priesthood. It wasn’t just some thing in a book somewhere- it was open discussion and advocation for the ideas. Dating members outside your own race is where my problem with the church’s stance and attitude started as I was at that point old enough to make some judgements which were informed. I call it attitude because of how the following situations (s) were handled. When I was 16, I invited a Mexican girl from school to a church dance. We were not dating, but were friends. She accepted and she was dropped off at the dance by her brother because her parents would never approve of her going anywhere with a white kid. Anyway, we went in, she sat down with some bishop real quick to get a temp dance card our stake was using at the time and we had a good time at the dance….lots of looks though. She was the only non-white there, but it wasn’t a very big deal as she knew many of the kids and got along fine. Fast FWD to Sunday, by the time sacrament meeting had been over for five minutes I got yanked into a classroom by my mother asking what the deal was with me dating a Mexican girl. I told her the truth and asked how she knew and she named two women who were working the dance the previous evening who came up to her to tell her. It wasn’t to tell her we looked cute or anything, it was to warn/inform her that her son was dating not only a non-member but one who wasn’t white like him. I got sidelined by a bishop counselor and told I had a meeting with the Bishop directly after church so of course I went. The bishop read right out of some manual how we were not to marry outside our own race and that dating is what leads to that. He told me I needed to end the relationship. I got the same treatment at home later on. Parents were pissed. It was even more difficult for them because as Stake Pres, they knew it would get around our stake his kid was dating a non-member and a Mexican. There wasn’t animosity so-to-speak about Mexicans, it was just that you date your own kind is how it was put. Did the commentary surprise me??? Not a bit as I was taught all that growing up. The surprise came when I realized…yea these people believe all this BS and they are gonna force it on me and now I’m the bad guy. These are the "good mormons" who occupy leadership in the church and cut from same cloth as the senior leadership. The girl and I never went out again- wasn’t because of this we just didn’t hit it off. I continued to date mostly non-whites in High School. I didn’t get along /associate with the LDS girls because frankly most didn’t want to date stake pres kid and I hung around a different crowd anyway. I'm sure they had other reasons too- who cares. My parents hated it and always had something to say and it was always about the fact they were not white. They didn’t dis on their race, just that I shouldn’t associate with them. The same kind of talk was all over church publications and we were taught that stuff in firesides etc. It was apparent to me that not only did our prophets have a lot of messed up stuff to say, but even the local leaders practiced it as they had to be obedient you know. After high school I ditched the mission idea and went straight into the military. Parents and bishop went haywire over that too. I was sure to marry some black or Puerto Rican stripper from a club near FT Bragg given my attraction to non whites…yes my mother said that to me. I finished my four years away and came home single. Later married and yea not married to who I was supposed to marry, but it was in the temple and we are still together- happy contrary to what we were told we couldn’t be.. No one said anything, but I know what they thought to themselves and what they believed because they had already demonstrated that my entire life. So, the notion of not choosing a black apostle isn’t just a pet peeve, I know those guys are not comfortable with them because that is the way they all were taught growing up long before me. There is a long list of talks, commentary, books etc with racist commentary. Here is just one example from Thomas S Monson’s book: 1985 book titled On the Lord’s Errand: Memoirs of Thomas S. Monson “In about 1956 we recognized that our neighborhood was dete­riorating. We observed this one Halloween by the nature of the people who came in the guise of ‘Trick or Treat.’ The minority elements were moving into the area where we lived, and many of the old-time families had long since moved away. Seeking coun­sel, I visited with Mark E. Peterson, ... As I mentioned to Mark my dilemma, wondering if it would be unfair for me to move, he said simply, ‘Your obligation to that area is concluded. Why don’t you build a house in my ward?’” Wow- that advice is real cute and what a surprise re who it came from lol. These guys kill me. That comes from Monson and he published it in a book written pretty much exactly when I took that Mexican girl to the dance. That is what the church leadership was and still is. It is the prophet setting the standard. They have avoided picking a black apostle because they don’t want one…period. Id venture to say they have even avoided picking a Hispanic one who is actually brown for the same reason. Call me what you want. When it comes to the church leadership and their past, we can know them by their fruits, the publications they signed off on and their silence over the decades.

I know all that google is my friend. Point is he looks white. From an outside observer just passing by, he and uchdorf could pass as fellow countrymen. Soares looks as Hispanic or Latino as I do and I’m white. blacks far outnumber Asians in the church. No black apostles. my experience of over 40 yrs later is much more drastic. I remember being taught in sun school blacks less valiant, blackface in roadshows and lamanites being portrayed in sun school manuals as lazy. My family even participated in the indian placement program. You know where good white lds families essentially colonize the lifestyle of a Navajo adolescent and teach them to act like white Mormons. Yep we did all that. The guys in charge now??! Some of them were apostles during that time. All of them grew up with that attitude in the church and later probably still believe much of it. The church has a long ways to go.

The kkk regularly targeted whites and killed them for sympathizing with blacks. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/june-21/the-kkk-kills-three-civil-rights-activists

I edited that.. my auto correct /fat finger was off course

Brigham Young was in favor of killing inter - racial couples specifically black/white. You are aware of that right? "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." — Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110 (March 8, 1863) im positive the klan would dig that. I don’t need to make stuff up. We had enough prophets run their mouths.

Read Delbert Stapley’s letter I posted above. He is a real piece of work and he did that on his quorum of 12 letterhead.

Read mark e Peterson’s material. It’s like he was lobbying for grand wizard or something. here’s more: https://ia801508.us.archive.org/23/items/DelbertStapleyLetter/delbert_stapley_Letter_text.pdf doubt your doubts

If the church isn’t willing to have the bishop share the confession in court ( apparently against the law there) who does he think he is to share it with anyone else if it exists? He would be violating the law by disclosing that info to a third party.

There is definitely bias. It is baked into our history and more than one prophet/apostle etc has some published letters, docs etc that would make the KKK blush.

I didn’t say Soares was a German. I said he looks like one

Are you kidding? Those guys all live for being stuck in endless church meetings and missing out on most of their families lives. That’s how they get picked…we found our yes man. Being totally church broke.

soares looks just like uchdorf lol. A German. Asians are approx 1% of lds church. African descent is about 5%. Brazilians represent about 8% of the church. One could say Soares is Hispanic I guess so perhaps he can also represent all Hispanics if they will have him. He is white as heck though. Anyway, asians are over represented and blacks are not represented at all. Not surprising since Mormons discriminated against black families until recently. Kinda goes along with the demographic of the Q15. They are not ready for a black guy in there yet despite likely many very qualified people available.

I would agree with you on there being plenty of qualified souls out there. You may be right in that there is no one who is well spoken enough to represent the Lord or business savvy enough, or well from Utah, Arizona or Idaho lol. Anyway The problem is the picks tend to be confined to their friends for the most part. There is no excuse at this point to not have at least a couple apostles who look like some of at least the larger minority demographics. Of course the Lord did award dark skin to the less valiant and they would turn white once they became righteous. At least all the current apostles were taught that so go figure.

Too bad no members of the church in Africa are righteous enough to become an apostle. Congrats to this guy, but with all the massive growth of the church in Africa I’d think the 1st Pres would be able to find one black guy who is good enough to be an apostle. Guess not.

where did I demand the church waive its defenses? You don’t get to lie about what I said. By your own statements in another threads, no one who has not bern excommunicated or formally resigned can claim to be exmormon. Looks like you are more likely to just say no one deserves compensation for child abuse at the hands of church leaders.. no matter what happened to them. you are attributing things to me I have never said- have a nice night

I did qualify my statement with the condition the victim deserved the justice. Nowhere did I advocate allowing the church to be looted. “That’s cute and all, but when it prevents a victim from getting justice because of a technicality when they actually deserve it, it doesn’t sound so Christlike.”

To include sharing notes of a confession of a sin to a bishop with a third party? That’s what it seems like what he was offering to do

That’s cute and all, but when it prevents a victim from getting justice because of a technicality when they actually deserve it, it doesn’t sound so Christlike. millstones for those who operate that way too

2 Q. So you're saying there was no 3 responsibility by LDS Family Services to keep records 4 of the phone calls they received; correct? 5 A. We did not keep records of those phone 6 calls. My understanding is the helpline is the conduit to either an attorney or a counselor. Once the call taker whether it be a counselor or a lawyer (sounds like both can / do take incoming calls) determines what the call is (abuse allegation or request for counseling services) the call is diverted to the proper place. The counselors who initially take the call of abuse do not ask for names or specifics, just whether or not it is some form of abuse and who the reporting leader is. Call then goes to the lawyers at Kirton McKonkie and the counselor no longer has any involvement. The record of the call to the counselor is then apparently destroyed. This is the final involvement of LDS Family service who run the hotline. legal reporting requirements were not part of 24 Family Services responsibilities. That was a legal 25 responsibility, and those records were kept by the 1 lawyers. If the person who initially took that call is an attorney, then the call gets converted to the privileged notes which are property of the law firm (KM). If the attorney who answers the call finds it is just someone looking for a counselor he/she likely just routes it back to the counselors and goes about his/her day. So…per the deposition notes LDS Family services does not keep ANY helpline notes. That means there are none to look up…ever. Why Ryttling calls KM Law Firm’s privileged records “helpline notes” is frankly amateurish. There is no chance in a million he would call them that in a court of law. KMs privilidged records are not the helpline. The helpline is how you get to the lawyers. LDS family services supposedly cannot even look up if anyone called at all. KM can look up any call that their lawyers are handling because the call itself met the threshold for privileged information. That is waaaay different than....hey a couple in our ward keeps going to swinger parties...can I get a counselor that specializes in sexual deviancy??? KM wont be keeping a record of that one. “6 Q. Don't you think it would be important to 17 keep track of the first report that a bishop or a 18 stake president is making to the Help Line? 19 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. You're 20 just arguing, Counsel. Objection. 21 Q. You can answer. 22 A. We did not keep records at our end as the 23 legal reporting requirements were not part of 24 Family Services responsibilities. That was a legal 25 responsibility, and those records were kept by the 1 lawyers. 2 Q. So you're saying there was no 3 responsibility by LDS Family Services to keep records 4 of the phone calls they received; correct? 5 A. We did not keep records of those phone 6 calls.. That said, you can google this whole situation and see that the statements of these two guys are creating a firestorm of doubt as to who is telling the truth. Like you guys say, they likely are and are just exchanging terminology for the helpline. I can accept that, but one must wonder how in the world a supposedly sophisticated organization can have a hotline system since 1995 and not eventually create some sort of policy manual for the people to work at the hotline to use. According to VanKomen, they dont even keep records of who has been handing calls. There is like five pages of the deposition detailing how no one knows who, when or how many times anyone has done anything. They pretty much don't keep records. pp35 Q. Was it a written or was it a spoken policy 21 to destroy the assignment records for the Help Line? 22 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 23 A. There is no written policy that I am aware 24 of. A written policy will allow them to define what calls are what, what gets destroyed and what is saved and who has custody of the notes. As of this time, the current “policy” pretty much allows them to destroy every single thing they have so long as they call it a “hotline” or “helpline” note, log etc. Maybe that is by design? If so, that is dishonest. They seriously need to up their game in this department especially in the light of this abuse problem having already cost the church hundreds of millions of dollars in payouts and likely many million$ more to come because too many of our priesthood leaders can’t keep their hands off of children. Seems as if having a quarry to make millstones is in order so when Jesus comes back he can launch legions of rapists into the sea. I seriously doubt any attorney is walking around at Kirton McKonkie referring to his / her cases as helpline notes. My theory is Ryttling uses that terminology so he always has an out….yea they destroyed those notes lol. He by his own conduct on a recording has shown he is dishonest in his presentation as to who he really is. Additionally, how stupid does one have to be to state while being recorded (he was aware he was being recorded) he is going to look through the hotline notes to see if he can find a statement about a confession and forgiveness?? I thought that kind of thing was clergy/penitent privilege?? Stupid thing to say. I’m betting the only truthful guy in the room is VanKomen.

It isn't there. It was part of the whole rytting / vanKomen contradiction discussion where Rytting is stating he will check helpline records while we have another guy representing the church stating the helpline doesn't keep any call records. It was maintained by Pyreaux Rytting didn't lie to Chelsea about checking help line call records, but we have contradictory statements by church representatives in regards to whether helpline records are destroyed or not. This is what the whole controversy is about. Church reps are not on the same sheet of music and they are basically creating a scenario where they can be accused of lying. I understand the deposition itself and also never accused Van Komen of lying. This is what I wrote: "Van komen must be lying in his deposition then… he stayed very clearly the helpline / hotline doesn’t keep any records of calls at all." Basically since the two have made different statements about the helpline notes, obviously Van Komen is lying since Rytting is allegedly not lying. Both of their statements cannot be true at the same time. It was a smart alec comment to describe the absurdity of how church reps contradicting each other. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously but apparenlty some folks need a "/S" tag after such statements because they don't have a sense of humor. Pyreaux thinks the privilege log and helpline call notes are the same thing: This is what a privilege log is: A privilege log is a mandatory legal document in US litigation, often required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), that identifies documents withheld from discovery due to privilege (e.g., attorney-client privilege, work product). It lists key metadata—date, author, recipients, and subject matter—without revealing the protected content. That is not the same as helpline call notes. Rytting should know that and needs to change how he describes things. Also if Rytting were to offer up Privilege log notes he would be opening up another can of worms.

Yes... Rytting is an attorney for the church and does not take hotline/helpline calls (which as we know the notes for are destroyed), he goes around the country writing checks to pay off victims. The problem is he is dishonest in dealing with Chelsea and what he says to her. Perhaps he is confused with what different records and notes are called, but I highly doubt he is that dumb. He knows who keeps records and who doesnt. Ryttings statement about how he presents himself and the "checking" with the helpline is troubling in three respects: 1- In one of the meetings, Paul was asked if he was representing the church as an attorney. This is what he said: Eric Alberdi: Is it fair to say that you’re representing the church corporation as a paid attorney, I assume, in this meeting or not? Paul Rytting: No, I’m a church employee. I have a legal background. My job is with the church’s risk management division. Rytting is a paid attorney for the church. His Linkdin profile shows him continuously in that status for 34 ish years. He is literally a lawyer and has been such since 1991 in Utah according to their Bar records: Utah State Bar ID Number: 6027 Since 1991 He is the DIRECTOR of risk management. Interesting how he calls being an attorney "a legal background" and basically words his response to imply yea he is some sort of para-legal or whatever instead of really being an actual lawyer. It isn't a very honest response and it is designed to take people off-guard because no one trusts any lawyer except for their own. He must have listened to Dallin Oaks talk on duty to disclose AKA lying without lying. As an attorney working for the church he knows darn well his number one mission is to protect the "good name of the church" whatever that may entail. If in his travels he runs into info that exposes the church to liability his mission is to defend the church however that may be done. The notion of him saying he isnt a paid attorney for the church is a total lie. 2- Rytting knows helpline does not keep notes. The Goodrich case is in possession of the church attorneys and as a rep of the church who is out writing checks, he likely is highly educated in the details of these cases as he is meeting with victims and is negotiating settlements. He knows the details of the cases. Why offer to check something he knows does not exist. His job is to write a check and get another mess cleaned off the church's table. As for him thinking Kirton McKonkie's records are helpline notes??? I highly doubt that. 3- Rytting stated he would check with the helpline notes to see if the suspect had confessed to his Bishop... What?? Who does he think he is by offering to violate clergy/penitent privilege by checking a record for a confession and sharing it with the victim? He didnt say he would share what he found, but if he didnt intend on sharing the info, why even say something? The link you provided is a law firms privilege log and all the entries are by attorneys it would seem. None of them show any kind of commentary of a call to the helpline. Sure a call may have come from there, but the log does not say that. Anyway Rytting has probably found he is more effective over the years by presenting this way, but it is patently dishonest how he presents himself. Also looking for a confession to a bishop in the helpline notes??? What business is it of his or Chelsea? Edit: Just adding here re the link and the "Summary of Merrill Nelson's (A) call with SP Kevin Goates" comment. This is not a helpline call center note, it is a record of the call between the stake president and the attorney Merrill..and it is privileged and those are notes belonging to Kirton McKonkie.

Read again what I wrote- By saying “ I don’t know” when you actually do.. that is called “lying”

By saying I don’t know when you actually do.. that is called “lying” I was taught in the church to not lie. I would think the same would apply to temple recommend holding high priests but maybe I’m a bit naive. carefully worded denial comes to mind .. that is the example our prophet set so why not?

Did you read the deposition? It is clearly a confused mess there. The only thing that isn’t confusing is they destroy their records. The rest they just throw jello on the wall to see what sticks. They do not have a policy manual even… since 1995 no written policy. Amateur hour or plausible deniability.