awyatt

Having read through all of this tread, it seems to me that this is the crux of the matter. From this old fart's perspective, there is more abuse today because (1) we have redefined what constitutes abuse and (2) our general societal moral "bulwarks" are no longer in place. As to (1), just think of the old adage of "spare the rod and spoil the child." Acting upon such today is viewed as perpetrating abuse. Our society used to be much more accepting (and expecting) of corporal punishment in almost any form. Today, not so much, with the possible exception in some regions, but not all, of accepting spanking. When you broaden the definition of what constitutes abuse, you axiomatically increase the incidence of abuse. As for (2), there were, in the past, greater societal consequences to aberrant behavior of any type. People who acted against the generally accepted morals of society were punished by that society, oft times in a fast and furious manner. So, yes, Jennifer's suggestions would work in a faith community, and at one time we used to live in a society which, in general, was a "faith community. Think, for a moment, about smac's quoting of John Adams, earlier: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (In my remembrance, though, I thought this was a quote from Franklin and not Adams.) Regardless of the author of the quote, does anyone believe that the definition of "a moral and religious people" in 1787/88 was different than the society in which we live today? Would Adams (or Franklin) view our Constitution as sustainable in today's moral environment? So Jennifer's suggestions may not work, simply because of the society at large. And trying to legislate morality seems an exercise doomed to ultimate failure. Such legislation may win battles, but the war will, at length, be lost. Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing that we return to those "good old days of yore." We live in a societal milieu in which we are comfortable. I will say, however, that societal pendulums swing, and if we ever return to a society in which the moral bulwarks more closely resemble those of 75, 150, 0r 200 years ago, then we will see less instances of abuse because society, as a whole, will have an interest in teaching people not to engage in such behavior and will punish offenders of those bulwarks.

The Church does not fund them. Book of Mormon Central (now a part of Scripture Central) is independent and raises funds from donations, like so many others (including The Interpreter Foundation and FAIR). I should also mention that Book of Mormon Central (again, now part of Scripture Central) was founded by Jack Welch.

You are misunderstanding.

I believe the Area Seventy recommends the temple president, which must be approved by the First Presidency. Temple Recorder is a paid, full-time church position. It is not considered an ecclesiastical calling, so therefore is most likely handled through the Temple Department. Assistant recorders are typically, IIRC, callings, just like sealers are. People for these callings are recommended by stake presidents within the temple district.

Grant Hardy's new Annotated Book of Mormon (Oxford University Press) seems like a great resource for study. I've got it sitting on my shelf. Plus, Brant Gardner's six-volume annotated Book of Mormon is awesome, as is Kevin Barney's multi-volume.

Wow. Just wow. Let's try to make this simple: If I translate something from Russian to English and I use a word in that translation to convey a thought that was in the original Russian, but the word I choose is not one that Russians would know, does that mean I'm a fraud as a translator? Nope. The Book of Mormon wasn't originally in English. Joseph Smith translated from the original language. He chose the word "Adieu" not because it was in the original, but because the word would be familiar into the target language--English. This is not a hard concept. For those who want the latest scholarship on this issue, there is this: Toward a Greater Appreciation of the Word Adieu in Jacob 7:27. Written by an academic who spent his career teaching at a Catholic university, IIRC.

Hard topic. Bishops (and, by extension, the Church) are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If a state has a clergy-penitent privilege in place and the bishop reports what is said during a confession, then the Church is open to a lawsuit by the confessor. However, if the bishop says nothing and someone continues to be hurt by the confessor, then the Church is open to a lawsuit by the injured. You see a variation of this as the basis for many a TV drama--a "bad person" (almost exclusively a man) makes a confession to a doctor or therapist and then the bad person keeps doing bad things. The police, investigating the bad things, come to the doctor or therapist who says "you know I cannot discuss this with you because of doctor-client privilege." The police go away and have to find a different way to get the bad person. Nobody ever says the doctor or therapist is bad (or worse) than the bad person because everyone accepts doctor-client privilege as a real thing. However, if it happens in a religious context, it is the Church who is always portrayed as "covering up" the bad behavior. Always. That is because we live in a society which, increasingly, devalues what religion does for the penitent. We increasingly see the clergy-penitent privilege as a thing not to be ultimately valued. The Church doesn't "cover up" abuse in these cases, it tries to make sure that the bishop as the front-line face of the Church abides by what the law requires. I guarantee that the Church counsels the bishop to try to get the confessor to talk with authorities. But if the person refuses to do so, the law ties the hands of the bishop and the Church. The problem isn't the Church. The problem is the law. If people don't want the Church to abide by the law, then change the law. But don't blame the Church for abiding by what the law says should be done. <Going back into lurk mode.>

Who's Buying Nebraska I think it is noteworthy that the story relies heavily on data produced by Truth & Transparency, which is the heir to the MomonLeaks site from years ago. Truth & Transparency was sued out of business by the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Scientologists back in April 2022. I guess it doesn't stop them from being quoted as a reliable source 19 months after closing their doors. The data about landholdings could be correct; it may not be correct. We have no way of knowing. The dark and devious implications imputed to the landholdings are almost certainly incorrect and the choice of sources should be considered suspect. -Allen