The Movie "Spotlight" and Its Implications in Utah

[Johnnie Cake]

For those unfamiliar with the movie, to put it simply, it is a movie about the true story of how the Boston Globe uncovered the massive scandal of child molestation by Catholic Priests and it's subsequent cover-up within the local Catholic Archdiocese, shaking the entire Catholic Church to its core. Also it is the story of how members of the Catholic Church in a position of leadership who could have actually done something to stop the abuse instead chose to protect the Church rather than caring for the needs of the children being abused. Systemic, blind loyalty to the institution and misplaced priorities often happens behind closed doors where there is no accountability or public scrutiny.

Those closest to the "Cover Up" justified it to protect the churches assets and reputation but by doing so they ended up accomplishing neither of these things and instead only helped facilitate the spread of the abuse by merely moving abusive priests to other parishes where they continued their abuse on new victims instead of subjecting these priests to justice.  In the end it cost the church both its reputation and its assets, estimated at over 2.2 billion in settlements. But the real tragedy is that it left in its wake nearly 100,000 abused survivors https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/vatican-abuse-summit-22-billion-and-100000-victims-us-alone

Like Boston, the Greater Salt Lake City area, is also dominated by an authoritarian religion filled with file leaders who pledge their allegiance to the LDS hierarchy.   Recently we've seen how BYU chose to protect the institution's image rather than choosing to protect victims of rape.  Victims were charged with Honor Code violations and victimization instead of help by extracting a cost on the victims http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/us/rape-victims-brigham-young-university-honor-code-suspensions.html?_r=0 rather than offering support.

While I can't imagine a scenario that could rise to the level of that of the Catholic Churches in Boston, it does appear that many of the same institutional loyalties that allowed the Boston cover ups to occur do exist here in Utah.

Is the church doing anything to instruct its leaders to put the needs of the victims ahead of those of the church? The BYU case discounts that notion...but clearly there is a lesson to be learned from the Boston Cover-ups...one I hope the LDS Church is learning from.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[thesometimesaint]

While No group is immune from such deplorable actions. We do a pretty good job. That being said sometimes we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Edited July 29, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[HappyJackWagon]

It's a really good movie.

While there may be some parallels and the comparison seems logical, I think it's important not to assume too much. With the catholic, there was massive abuse. There was a massive cover up. Regarding the LDS church, there is no evidence of either. I'm not an investigative reporter, or law enforcement of any kind so I'll wait for evidence (if it exists) to come forward. At that time I will be outraged. Until then, it's just wild speculation.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

I read once of a missionary being asked by someone he was teaching this question:  "If your prophet told you to kill someone would you?" The missionary hesitated in answering the question, thought about it and then answered, "I don't know."  to which the investigator responded by asking. "Why didn't you answer me by just saying, NO?"

The fact that many in the church defer their thinking to the church and its leadership is the reality that could allow for something like Boston to happen here in Utah or within the church.  the fact that that members even have to think about something like that is were the problem, in my opinion lays.

I remember while on my mission, a time of my greatest commitment to church leadership, I probably would have answered an unquestioning yes if asked by the prophet to commit some deed.  Why would I even do this? the thought scares the heck out of me now that I would have given so much unquestioning power over to the church and its leaders...but its this kind of absolute unquestioning devotion that is at the crux of the problem and which also led to the Boston Cover up. 

[ksfisher]

33 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

Like Boston, the Greater Salt Lake City area, is also dominated by an authoritarian religion filled with file leaders who pledge their allegiance to the LDS hierarchy.  

I think your hypothesis starts to go wrong here.  In all the callings that have ever been extended to me I have never been asked to "pledge [my] allegiance to the LDS hierarchy."  I've been asked to serve the Lord and those who I have stewardship over. 

And I'm not really sure that you can say that Salt Lake City is dominated by the church.  Look at the mayors that have been elected recently: Rocky Anderson, Didi Corodini, Ralph Becker, Jackie Biskupski.  Do they remind you of people dominated by the LDS church?

You also didn't mention that the University of Utah and Westminster College (both located in Salt Lake City) are currently under federal investigation for their handling of sexual assault cases. Neither of those two universities seem to be dominated by the "LDS hierarchy."

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=40834861&nid=148&title=2-utah-schools-under-federal-investigation-for-sexual-assault

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by ksfisher

[Johnnie Cake]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a really good movie.

While there may be some parallels and the comparison seems logical, I think it's important not to assume too much. With the catholic, there was massive abuse. There was a massive cover up. Regarding the LDS church, there is no evidence of either. I'm not an investigative reporter, or law enforcement of any kind so I'll wait for evidence (if it exists) to come forward. At that time I will be outraged. Until then, it's just wild speculation.

 

As stated in my OP:

Quote

While I can't imagine a scenario that could rise to the level of that of the Catholic Churches in Boston, it does appear that many of the same institutional loyalties that allowed the Boston cover ups to occur do exist here in Utah.

I don't believe that a systemic abuse scenario exists within the LDS church...but what does exist is the "Mind Set" the absolute, unquestioning loyalty to church, institution and leadership hierarchy. 
Because of this...the stage is set.  We look back at Mountain Meadows, it only happened because otherwise good men didn't question their leaders orders...and while I am not suggesting that we could ever have a repeat of that tragedy...the mind set still exists within the LDS church...the unquestioning devotion to leaders and the deferral of personal desires to those of the leaders directions.

 

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I read once of a missionary being asked by someone he was teaching this question:  "If your prophet told you to kill someone would you?" The missionary hesitated in answering the question, thought about it and then answered, "I don't know."  to which the investigator responded by asking. "Why didn't you answer me by just saying, NO?"

The fact that many in the church defer their thinking to the church and its leadership is the reality that could allow for something like Boston to happen here in Utah or within the church.  the fact that that members even have to think about something like that is were the problem, in my opinion lays.

I remember while on my mission, a time of my greatest commitment to church leadership, I probably would have answered an unquestioning yes if asked by the prophet to commit some deed.  Why would I even do this? the thought scares the heck out of me now that I would have given so much unquestioning power over to the church and its leaders...but its this kind of absolute unquestioning devotion that is at the crux of the problem and which also led to the Boston Cover up. 

Not really. The Boston cover up had nothing to do with unquestioned devotion feelings to superiors, but rather with feelings of self-preservation. If their local church's assets were destroyed by paying for the damage, would they still have parishes to oversee? etc. As it is some of the heads of the bishops did roll.

I am never for unquestioned loyalty except to God. Being that all humans are fallible and possibly could come under the influence of Satan, anything a leader asked me to do which I feel is in conflict with God's law, I would seek guidance on through prayer. If "the prophet" asked me to kill someone, there are circumstances where this may be necessary. If God tells us to go to war to protect our families and church, I may agree that it comes from the Lord, and is necessary. Otherwise I think killing an innocent person would usually be against the law except in cases where they are terminal, etc.

I think many Protestant leaders of the past are guilty of much greater things than LDS church leaders. Martin Luther was quite the anti-semite, and reading his writings could have led to many a crime against Jews.

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think your hypothesis starts to go wrong here.  In all the callings that have ever been extended to me I have never been asked to "pledge [my] allegiance to the LDS hierarchy."  I've been asked to serve the Lord and those who I have stewardship over. 

And I'm not really sure that you can say that Salt Lake City is dominated by the church.  Look at the mayors that have been elected recently: Rocky Anderson, Didi Corodini, Ralph Becker, Jackie Biskupski.  Do they remind you of people dominated by the LDS church?

You also didn't mention that the University of Utah and Westminster College (both located in Salt Lake City) are currently under federal investigation for their handling of sexual assault cases. Neither of those two universities seem to be dominated by the "LDS hierarchy."

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=40834861&nid=148&title=2-utah-schools-under-federal-investigation-for-sexual-assault

 

Thanks for mentioning the U of U and Westminster and no BYU is not the only Utah institution facing new scrutiny.  With respect to your point of SLC's mayoral diversity...In my OP I did specifically say "Greater"  SLC not SLC. With respect to your pledge...If you are a temple recommend holder you do pledge allegiance

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

If you are a temple recommend holder you do pledge allegiance

In the temple recommend interviews that I've been asked if I sustain leaders, never if I "pledge allegiance."  Your changing of the wording comes off as pejorative.  If this is your intention then it would not seem you've entered into a discussion with the best of intentions.

 

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thanks for mentioning the U of U and Westminster and no BYU is not the only Utah institution facing new scrutiny.  With respect to your point of SLC's mayoral diversity...In my OP I did specifically say "Greater"  SLC not SLC. With respect to your pledge...If you are a temple recommend holder you do pledge allegiance

Not in my Temple Recommend.

SEE http://lds4u.com/lesson5/templequestions.htm

[carbon dioxide]

50 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Recently we've seen how BYU chose to protect the institution's image rather than choosing to protect victims of rape.  Victims were charged with Honor Code violations and victimization instead of help by extracting a cost on the victims http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/us/rape-victims-brigham-young-university-honor-code-suspensions.html?_r=0 rather than offering support.

While I may not agree with how BYU approached these issues and changes can be made, in a number of these cases, there were honor code violations.  There is nothing written in the honor code that an honor code violation is overlooked or dismissed if some other person commits a crime or action against while they are violating the honor code.   If a student chooses to drink beer at 10 P.M. and is assaulted at 11 P.M. the assault at 11 does not cancel out the actions at 10 as if that did not happen.  They are separate events and BYU should treat them as separate events.  Perhaps the fact that they were assaulted in consequence of their actions at 10 might be viewed as they have suffered enough from their poor decision made at 10 P.M.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

While I may not agree with how BYU approached these issues and changes can be made, in a number of these cases, there were honor code violations.  There is nothing written in the honor code that an honor code violation is overlooked or dismissed if some other person commits a crime or action against while they are violating the honor code.   If a student chooses to drink beer at 10 P.M. and is assaulted at 11 P.M. the assault at 11 does not cancel out the actions at 10 as if that did not happen.  They are separate events and BYU should treat them as separate events.  Perhaps the fact that they were assaulted in consequence of their actions at 10 might be viewed as they have suffered enough from their poor decision made at 10 P.M.

Just stop with the blaming the victim.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I read once of a missionary being asked by someone he was teaching this question:  "If your prophet told you to kill someone would you?" The missionary hesitated in answering the question, thought about it and then answered, "I don't know."  to which the investigator responded by asking. "Why didn't you answer me by just saying, NO?"

 

Maybe the missionary had a bit more nuanced thinking than the investigator and could imagine situations where it would be the right thing to do, such as a man threatening to kill a bus load of people with a bomb.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

In the temple recommend interviews that I've been asked if I sustain leaders, never if I "pledge allegiance."  Your changing of the wording comes off as pejorative.  If this is your intention then it would not seem you've entered into a discussion with the best of intentions.

 

I am not using the word as a pejorative. I'm merely trying to point out respectfully that members can't criticize church leaders even when they are wrong...and isn't that a form of alleagence?  Leaders aren't accountable to members if they are not subject to their criticism  But if the word allegence offends you I'm happy to use sustain but I believe the word allegence describes the LDS expectation better than sustain when leaders are not subject to criticism

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

While I may not agree with how BYU approached these issues and changes can be made, in a number of these cases, there were honor code violations.  There is nothing written in the honor code that an honor code violation is overlooked or dismissed if some other person commits a crime or action against while they are violating the honor code.   If a student chooses to drink beer at 10 P.M. and is assaulted at 11 P.M. the assault at 11 does not cancel out the actions at 10 as if that did not happen.  They are separate events and BYU should treat them as separate events.  Perhaps the fact that they were assaulted in consequence of their actions at 10 might be viewed as they have suffered enough from their poor decision made at 10 P.M.

Thank you for proving my point...

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I am not using the word as a pejorative. I'm merely trying to point out respectfully that members can't criticize church leaders even when they are wrong...and isn't that a form of alleagence?  Leaders aren't accountable to members if they are not subject to their criticism  But if the word allegence offends you I'm happy to use sustain but I believe the word allegence describes the LDS expectation better than sustain when leaders are not subject to criticism

Yours is a fallacious argument. It is exactly like a claim that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is a vow to never disagree with any political leader. We are free to argue for change in the Church while still supporting and defending its leaders.

[Johnnie Cake]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yours is a fallacious argument. It is exactly like a claim that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is a vow to never disagree with any political leader. We are free to argue for change in the Church while still supporting and defending its leaders.

I'm not trying to paint anyone into a corner only expose a common thread between the circumstances that allowed the Boston abuse scandle to exist and grow and the same mindset that exists in Utah where leaders are above public scrutiny & criticism, deference and loyalty is given to the institution over victims and where victim needs are subordinate to those of the institution.  I believe that such a mindset does exist.

The manner in which church employees handled the Navajo Indian case are a good example of putting the church before the victim:

Quote

One of the plaintiffs alleged that he disclosed the abuse to employees of LDS Family Services, then known as LDS Social Services, twice. The original suit alleges LDS Family Services employees failed to warn the children's parents, police or child protective services.

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-responds-to-navajo-sex-abuse-lawsuit

Edited July 29, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 Recently we've seen how BYU chose to protect the institution's image rather than choosing to protect victims of rape.  Victims were charged with Honor Code violations and victimization instead of help by extracting a cost on the victims

 

Every time this is brought up, it is worded in such a way that makes it look like BYU charged the victims for the crime of being raped.  As far as I can tell, they were always charged for other (actual) Honor Code violations that may have come to light because of the rape.  That might be a bad thing for BYU to do, but it's not the same.

[rodheadlee]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm not trying to paint anyone into a corner only expose a common thread between the circumstances that allowed the Boston abuse scandle to exist and grow and the same mindset that exists in Utah where leaders are above public scrutiny & criticism, deference and loyalty is given to the institution over victims and where victim needs are subordinate to those of the institution.  I believe that such a mindset does exist

And you think victims shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, rodheadlee said:

And you think victims shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

Wow...Really?  Are you really asking this question?  Did you read what your wrote?  I'm gobsmacked...

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

And you think victims shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

Are you speaking of the victims of child molestation?

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I read once of a missionary being asked by someone he was teaching this question:  "If your prophet told you to kill someone would you?" The missionary hesitated in answering the question, thought about it and then answered, "I don't know."  to which the investigator responded by asking. "Why didn't you answer me by just saying, NO?"

 

That's a dumb question.  It's like asking "If the US President asked you to kill someone, would you do it?"

Uh, maybe?  If I were asked to run off a landing craft on June 6 to the beaches of Normandy and kill as many Germans as I could in an effort to free Europe from Hitler's tyranny, then yes, I might do that.  If I were asked to kill defenseless villagers in the middle of the jungle in Vietnam, then hopefully no, I wouldn't.

I honestly can't imagine a scenario where "my prophet" would ask me to kill someone, but without a context for the question ("...you're standing next to President Monson on a sidewalk in SLC, and his bodyguard is tying his shoe when you notice a man with an explosive vest running down the deserted sidewalk towards you yelling "Death to the Mormon Prophet."  You happen to have a gun, and President Monson says "Please shoot him before he kills us all..")  it's impossible to answer the question.

 

The missionary's response should have been "With a simplistic moral worldview like that, you'd make a great Mormon!  Will you be baptized?"

 

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by cinepro

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That might be a bad thing for BYU to do, but it's not the same.

Agreed.  I would hope that in the future the honor code office would back off until law enforcement has finished their investigation. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The manner in which church employees handled the Navajo Indian case are a good example of putting the church before the victim:

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-responds-to-navajo-sex-abuse-lawsuit

This occurred during a time period where reporting child abuse was screwed up by general cultural attitudes.  One would need to compare LDS episodes to the general public to see if there was any significant difference first before judging whether or not any LDS attitudes contributed to poorer reporting behaviour.

[Johnnie Cake]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's a dumb question.  It's like asking "If the US President asked you to kill someone, would you do it?"

Uh, maybe?  If I were asked to run off a landing craft on June 6 to the beaches of Normandy and kill as many Germans as I could in an effort to free Europe from Hitler's tyranny, then yes, I might do that.  If I were asked to kill defenseless villagers in the middle of the jungle in Vietnam, then hopefully no, I wouldn't.

I honestly can't imagine a scenario where "my prophet" would ask me to kill someone, but without a context for the question ("...you're standing next to President Monson on a sidewalk in SLC, and his bodyguard is tying his shoe when you notice a man with an explosive vest running down the deserted sidewalk towards you yelling "Death to the Mormon Prophet."  You happen to have a gun, and President Monson says "Please shoot him before he kills us all..")  it's impossible to answer the question.

 

The missionary's response should have been "With a simplistic moral worldview like that, you'd make a great Mormon!  Will you be baptized?"

 

 

Point taken...and you did make me laugh out loud