The Movie "Spotlight" and Its Implications in Utah

[Johnnie Cake]

I don't want to get off into the weeds...my point in this thread is to drill down on the common mindset that I believe existed in Boston and exists within the LDS community that places allegiance to the institution above the protection of the individual.  I believe that it exists,  am I wrong or is a more nuanced question that I am asking...does it need context...are there situations when allegiance to the institution should overweigh those of the victim?  Please help me understand

[ksfisher]

44 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

The word allegiance doesn't offend me, but neither does it describe the manner in which members of the church relate to their leaders.  We sustain our leaders.  This concept has been discussed and great detail on this board as well as being taught in church.  I most reasonable members of this board and the church can have meaningful discussion about how we sustain our leaders.

The context within which you used the word, a post about child molestation and then saying church members "pledge their allegiance to the LDS hierarchy" as well as an bringing up the Mountain Meadows Massacre as an example lead me to believe that your goal is to besmirch the leadership of the church as well as portray the members of the church as automatons who blindly follow the bidding of this "hierarchy."  

If you want to have a real discussion about a real problem let's.  Abuse is not acceptable by anyone, in or out of the church and is a problem that exists in all human societies. 

(Apparently I'm feeling rather strongly about all this.  No ill will is intended)

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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.

There does not seem to be any actual attempt to pressure victims to keep quiet or suppress information about rapes from getting out.  It seems rather that it was an unintended consequence having the opposite effect of what they really wanted. The Honor Code Office would prefer, I would assume given its mandate, for everyone in violation of or in knowledge of major violations to report themselves and others to the office so that they can be dealt with either by helping to correct behaviour or removing them from the school.

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't want to get off into the weeds...my point in this thread is to drill down on the common mindset that I believe existed in Boston and exists within the LDS community that places allegiance to the institution above the protection of the individual.  I believe that it exists,  am I wrong or is a more nuanced question that I am asking...does it need context...are there situations when allegiance to the institution should overweigh those of the victim?  Please help me understand

The institution is made up of individuals.  Harm to any individual member harms the institution.  There may have been cases in the past where individual leaders covered things up in the mistaken belief that it was best for the institution, but this kind of thinking is wrong and is not taught or encouraged by church leadership. 

Specific cases would need to be examined, but I believe that most instances where reports of abuse have been mishandled have been the result of lack of training and experience at the local level.  I believe that the church, as well as society in general, continues to improve in how we handle abuse.  Mistakes have been made, and will continue to be made, but overall I believe that things are improving.  

This is what the Lord asks us to do.  Identify problems.  Work together to fix those problems. 

[bsjkki]

As I often preface my statements, I am not a historian or scholar.  The case of the excommunication of Lavina Fielding Anderson and her excommunication have bothered me.  From my limited understanding, she was excommunicated because she wanted to document stories of ecclesiastical abuse within the LDS church.  From what I have read her intent was to document these stories so that they could be studied so further ecclesiastical abuse would not happen.  How can things be changed if they are covered up and hidden?   https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V29N04_181.pdf  She has never stopped attending church and has a testimony.

 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't want to get off into the weeds...my point in this thread is to drill down on the common mindset that I believe existed in Boston and exists within the LDS community that places allegiance to the institution above the protection of the individual.  I believe that it exists,  am I wrong or is a more nuanced question that I am asking...does it need context...are there situations when allegiance to the institution should overweigh those of the victim?  Please help me understand

You would do better imo to cite incidents that have occurred since the bishops' hotline and other safety provisions have been put in place.  This indicates that members, especially leadership, will be more aware of options of reporting and if they do not report it is by choice and not ignorance.  Then you need to compare incidents and reporting behaviour of the general population (including subgroup of those in leadership/administrative positions who are involved in institutional reporting) to that of LDS in order to establish whether or not there is some LDS characteristic that pushes people to underreport.  Then you need to look into the causes of underreporting to determine if protecting the institution is one of them.  

So yeah, a lot more context is needed if you want a serious discussion rooted in reality and not one based on gut feelings and speculation.

[bsjkki]

This quote from her appeal to the first presidency seems to address the issue of this thread.

" I believe that the Church is not currently able to address the problems of ecclesiastical abuse for two reasons: (1) Very few, except those who have suf- fered ecclesiastical abuse or seen their loved ones endure its anguish and hu- miliations, are willing to believe that it can happen in the Lord's church. There is enormous denial of the problem and a defensiveness about protect- ing the leaders that prevents accurate analysis of the situation; and (2) The organizational structure of the priesthood pipeline works against correcting abuses and actually plays into the hands of abusive leaders."

[Glenn101]

24 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't want to get off into the weeds...my point in this thread is to drill down on the common mindset that I believe existed in Boston and exists within the LDS community that places allegiance to the institution above the protection of the individual.  I believe that it exists,  am I wrong or is a more nuanced question that I am asking...does it need context...are there situations when allegiance to the institution should overweigh those of the victim?  Please help me understand

Johnnie,

   I believe that it exists to some extent. I personally have not seen it in any of the wards and branches I have been part of over the years, but none of those were in predominantly LDS communities.

However, I was friends with an LDS couple that I knew years ago while I was still in the Navy. After the male friend was released from the Navy, he moved back to his home area, which was predominantly LDS and settled in to his post navy life. However, he was physically abusive to his wife. She reported it to the local church authorities, but they did little more than counsel him. He retained his callings and received no apparent censure. This finally led to the break up of the marriage.

I corresponded with both of them later. The (former) wife was bitter about the lack of support she received. The male friend never acknowledged that anything had happened.

This was several years ago and things may have changed. Information about spousal abuse and attitudes about trying to keep the family unit intact no matter what have changed over the years. I think that this is because of publicity (negative) and that the General Authorities may have better information and communications from the different stakes about such matters.

Glenn

[smac97]

3 hours 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.  

First, you aren't mentioning it.  Or addressing it.  There are three institutions of higher education in Utah who have recently been accused of mishandling some aspects of sexual assault incidents, and yet you are singling one out for particular criticism solely because of its affiliation with the LDS Church and totally ignoring the other two.

Second, why aren't you likewise going after the patrons of the U (the State of Utah) and Westminster (generic Protestantism, I suppose)?  Where are the accusations of the State being motivated "to protect the {state's} assets and reputation" and "facilitat{ing} the spread of the {sexual} abuse?"  You state in the 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.

Is the church doing anything to instruct its leaders to put the needs of the victims ahead of those of the church?

Why aren't you asking similar questions about the the State of Utah owing to its relationship with the U?  Isn't that inconsistent?  Or do you simply prefer to save such vile insinuations for when the LDS Church is in your crosshairs?

Third, have you stopped beating your wife yet?  I ask because that seems to be logically equivalent to your question about whether the LDS Church is "doing anything to instruct its leaders to put the needs of the victims ahead of those of the church."  Your question assumes/implies that the Church is not doing this, or that BYU - owing to a few instances of purported mishandling of sexual assault incidents - can now be implicitly accused of "put{ting} the needs of the {church} ahead of those of {the victims of sexual assault}."  Yours is a vile, profoundly offensive loaded question, not unlike the classic have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet example.

Finally, there is a decidedly ugly tone and insinuation in your not-particularly-accurate remark "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."  We've seen this sort of invective before, such as when Jesse Jackson "referred to Jews as 'Hymies' and to New York City as 'Hymietown' in January 1984 during a conversation with a black Washington Post reporter."  Putting aside, for the moment, the question of the accuracy of your accusation, I'd ask that you consider the pernicious connotation that it carries.  When someone says "Jews control Hollywood" or "Blacks control New Orleans," that someone is not complimenting Jews or Blacks.  He is signalling to his readers that the presence and influence of Jews or Blacks in a particular area is an undesirable thing, that their motives and behavior are suspect.  To be frank, that is how your statement above came across to me.

Food for thought.

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2016 by smac97

[UtahTexan]

Wow...really?  There is a comparison with the Catholic Church where the criminal rape and abuse of THOUSANDS of kids worldwide over many many years with massive cover-ups that stretched to the Vatican with the LDS Church?

Incredible

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, you aren't mentioning it.  Or addressing it.  There are three institutions of higher education in Utah who have recently been accused of mishandling some aspects of sexual assault incidents, and yet you are singling one out for particular criticism solely because of its affiliation with the LDS Church and totally ignoring the other two.

Second, why aren't you likewise going after the patrons of the U (the State of Utah) and Westminster (generic Protestantism, I suppose)?  Where are the accusations of the State being motivated "to protect the {state's} assets and reputation" and "facilitat{ing} the spread of the {sexual} abuse?"  You state in the OP:

Why aren't you asking similar questions about the the State of Utah owing to its relationship with the U?  Is consistency not your strong suit?  Or do you simply prefer to save such vile insinuations for when the LDS Church is in your crosshairs?

Third, have you stopped beating your wife yet?  I ask because that seems to be logically equivalent to your question about whether the LDS Church is "doing anything to instruct its leaders to put the needs of the victims ahead of those of the church."  Your question assumes/implies that the Church is not doing this, or that BYU - owing to a few instances of purported mishandling of sexual assault incidents - can now be implicitly accused of "put{ting} the needs of the {church} ahead of those of {the victims of sexual assault}."  Yours is a vile, profoundly offensive loaded question, not unlike the classic have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet example.

Finally, there is a decidedly ugly tone and insinuation in your not-particularly-accurate remark "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."  We've seen this sort of invective before, such as when Jesse Jackson "referred to Jews as 'Hymies' and to New York City as 'Hymietown' in January 1984 during a conversation with a black Washington Post reporter."  Putting aside, for the moment, the question of the accuracy of your accusation, I'd ask that you consider the pernicious connotation that it carries.  When someone says "Jews control Hollywood" or "Blacks control New Orleans," that someone is not complimenting Jews or Blacks.  He is signalling to his readers that the presence and influence of Jews or Blacks in a particular area is an undesirable thing, that their motives and behavior are suspect.  To be frank, that is how your statement above came across to me.

Food for thought.

-Smac

You say everything so much better than I do.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I am not using the word as a pejorative.

Well, FYI, it comes across as really pejorative, particularly since you are presenting this characterization of the Church and its members in a discussion where you are drawing parallels pertaining to sexual abuse.  

Characterizing the LDS Church as "authoritarian" that requires its members to "pledge allegiance" to it, and accusing BYU of "cho{osing} to protect its image rather than choosing to protect victims of rape" is about as pejorative and offensive as you can get.

Quote

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? 

First, there is nothing respectful in the accusation that BYU "chose to protect the institution's image rather than choosing to protect victims of rape."  That is a risible and profoundly offensive characterization of the situation.  And I think you know it.

Second, whether members of the Church can publicly criticize Church leaders has exactly jack squat to do with your accusation.  Latter-day Saints also believe that we are "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  This is literally one of the articles of our faith.  And yet here you are, throwing out public accusations about how the LDS Church is an "authoritarian religion" that "dominates" the "Greater Salt Lake City area," and that its members "pledge allegiance" to it (as juxtaposed to, I think, "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law").  You don't address this one whit.

Third, the Church has publicly and unequivocally denounced sex abuse of every type.  You don't address this, either.

Fourth, the Church has made extensive efforts to address sexual abuse as to circumstances within its sphere of influence.  Bishops are required to be "chaperoned" when meeting with a woman or youth.  Bishops have an 800 number to call to sort out the legalities of sexual abuse situations they may encounter.  "Two-deep leadership" is the standard for those teaching children and in Scouts.  Missionaries have strict guidelines as to how they can interact with children and members of the opposite sex.  And on and on and on.  And yet you don't address this either.

There is no corollary in the LDS Church for the horrific conspiratorial cover-up of widespread and long-term sexual abuse in the Catholic Church as described in the movie referenced in the OP.  None.  Your insinuations to the contrary are disgusting and contemptible.

Quote

Leaders aren't accountable to members if they are not subject to their criticism.

Oh, brother.  What does this have to do with BYU's purported mishandling of some sexual assault incidents?

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2016 by smac97

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The word allegiance doesn't offend me, but neither does it describe the manner in which members of the church relate to their leaders.  We sustain our leaders.  This concept has been discussed and great detail on this board as well as being taught in church.  I most reasonable members of this board and the church can have meaningful discussion about how we sustain our leaders.

The context within which you used the word, a post about child molestation and then saying church members "pledge their allegiance to the LDS hierarchy" as well as an bringing up the Mountain Meadows Massacre as an example lead me to believe that your goal is to besmirch the leadership of the church as well as portray the members of the church as automatons who blindly follow the bidding of this "hierarchy."  

If you want to have a real discussion about a real problem let's.  Abuse is not acceptable by anyone, in or out of the church and is a problem that exists in all human societies. 

(Apparently I'm feeling rather strongly about all this.  No ill will is intended)

No I appreciate the clarification, its helpful. 

When I was watching the movie...I keep thinking to myself...wow this could happen here...we have the same mindset as those in Boston...granted I have  my own bias's which I admit to...but as crazy as it sounds while on my mission, I would have taken a bullet for the church if asked...but that could have been just me...but I don't think so 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 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?"

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. 

What scares me is that there are children raised in every society who give unquestioning obedience to some tradition or group.  You are not the only one.  One expects that sort of immediate compliance on the battlefield --where lives are at stake and no hesitation can be tolerated.  But most of us should give some thought to demands or requests made upon us.  We need to teach our children to stop and consider any requested action, and to just say "no," when there is any doubt, or until parents can be consulted.  Child molesters depend on the power of their supposed authority, and on unquestioning obedience from children who never disagree with an adult.  We need to raise children who not only think for themselves, but who are prepared to be the odd man out, if need be.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't want to get off into the weeds...my point in this thread is to drill down on the common mindset that I believe existed in Boston and exists within the LDS community that places allegiance to the institution above the protection of the individual.  I believe that it exists,  am I wrong or is a more nuanced question that I am asking...does it need context...are there situations when allegiance to the institution should overweigh those of the victim?  Please help me understand

There is no non-weed portion of this topic.

I saw a movie based on a true story about a dimwitted man who undercut things and he turned out to be a serial killer. As Johnnie Cake fits this description what are the implications? Should we imprison him for the safety of all.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't want to get off into the weeds...my point in this thread is to drill down on the common mindset that I believe existed in Boston and exists within the LDS community that places allegiance to the institution above the protection of the individual.  I believe that it exists,  am I wrong or is a more nuanced question that I am asking...does it need context...are there situations when allegiance to the institution should overweigh those of the victim?  Please help me understand

It isn't only the Roman Catholic Church which has taken a hit for allowing child molesters free reign worldwide.  That has affected many churches, including the LDS Church, and the cost of lawsuits and judgments in court has been quite high.  What is expected of all churches is that the miscreants will be reported to the proper secular authorities, and that due diligence will be taken in vetting those who have charge of youth, whether in Primary, Young Women, or in Scouting.  Rules must be in place and followed, in order to prevent allowing the molesters access.  For example, two adults must be present with the young person at all times.

The cost to the Roman Catholic Church has not only been billions of dollars, many closed parishes, and property having to be sold to cover the costs, but a drifting away of many former active parishioners.  I noticed recently on TV that the Roman Catholics are now trying to recapture some of those lost members.  The lesson has been clear to the Vatican -- no more hiring of actively homosexual priests, no more cover ups.  The devastation to the Church in Ireland has been so strong that no one there any longer trusts their parish priest or bishop.  It will take generations to rebuild trust.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Jeanne]

Two things.

1.  Strict Obedience

2.  Follow the Prophet..Follow the Prophet.  He will not lead you astray.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The lesson has been clear to the Vatican -- no more hiring of actively homosexual priests, no more cover ups.

I think it's unfair and incorrect to insinuate that because a priest is homosexual, he is more likely to be a child molester. 

.

Edited July 29, 2016 by ALarson

[UtahTexan]

Just now, ALarson said:

I think it's unfair to insinuate that because a priest is homosexual, he is more likely to be a child molester. 

Read the Book "Good-bye, Good Men"....

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Read the Book "Good-bye, Good Men"....

Ok 

It is still not right to infer that a homosexual is more apt to molest a child than a heterosexual.  This horrible crime is committed by both.

[UtahTexan]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok 

It is still not right to infer that a homosexual is more apt to molest a child than a heterosexual.  This horrible crime is committed by both.

In a general sense.....agreed.  In the Catholic Church scandal?  Maybe not.  The book goes into the reasons......but the problems started by in 60s....... it was a really good book....

[ALarson]

54 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

In a general sense.....agreed.  In the Catholic Church scandal?  Maybe not.  The book goes into the reasons......but the problems started by in 60s....... it was a really good book....

I read the reviews and may be interested in reading it.  I have close family members who are Catholic and even one who is a Catholic Priest, so I have some of my own feelings regarding this topic.  I believe the Catholic church should allow their Priests to marry (for a number of reasons).  But we will see if that change is ever made.

But, I do not believe that a homosexual man or woman is more prone to sexually molest a child than someone who is heterosexual, and I object when that's hinted at.

Edited July 29, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No I appreciate the clarification, its helpful. 

When I was watching the movie...I keep thinking to myself...wow this could happen here...we have the same mindset as those in Boston...granted I have  my own bias's which I admit to...but as crazy as it sounds while on my mission, I would have taken a bullet for the church if asked...but that could have been just me...but I don't think so 

I appreciate you candor.  I personally don't see anything in LDS culture that would lead to coverups like those which happened within the Catholic Church.  While the LDS Church does reach that we are to be obedient, what we obey are the commandments that the Savior has given us, both in the scriptures and through modern prophets.

There is also another question in the temple recommend interview that is also pertinent to this discussion.  We are asked if we are honest in our dealings.  That has always been the question that has made me stop and think the most.  Am I truly honest with those I deal with.  I believe that because of the church places this great weight on honesty that a scandal such as the one in the OP is unlikely to happen.  

When it comes dowm to it, we, as in all of us, need to treat one another better.  All deserve to be dealt with honestly.  All deserve to be forgiven as they humbly desire to repent.  

Edited July 29, 2016 by ksfisher

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You would do better imo to cite incidents that have occurred since the bishops' hotline and other safety provisions have been put in place.  This indicates that members, especially leadership, will be more aware of options of reporting and if they do not report it is by choice and not ignorance.  Then you need to compare incidents and reporting behaviour of the general population (including subgroup of those in leadership/administrative positions who are involved in institutional reporting) to that of LDS in order to establish whether or not there is some LDS characteristic that pushes people to underreport.  Then you need to look into the causes of underreporting to determine if protecting the institution is one of them.  

So yeah, a lot more context is needed if you want a serious discussion rooted in reality and not one based on gut feelings and speculation.

Thanks for this, thankfully there is little current abuse being reported.   I believe it is important to point out that other than Elder Lee...I am unaware of any high ranking leader in the church being accused of abuse...personally I am not even aware of a bishop or SP being charged with abuse...so we can all be grateful for that as well...and on this point I do believe that the church is very different than that of the catholic church were the abuse was widespread as was the cover up

38 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It isn't only the Roman Catholic Church which has taken a hit for allowing child molesters free reign worldwide.  That has affected many churches, including the LDS Church, and the cost of lawsuits and judgments in court has been quite high.  What is expected of all churches is that the miscreants will be reported to the proper secular authorities, and that due diligence will be taken in vetting those who have charge of youth, whether in Primary, Young Women, or in Scouting.  Rules must be in place and followed, in order to prevent allowing the molesters access.  For example, two adults must be present with the young person at all times.

The cost to the Roman Catholic Church has not only been billions of dollars, many closed parishes, and property having to be sold to cover the costs, but a drifting away of many former active parishioners.  I noticed recently on TV that the Roman Catholics are now trying to recapture some of those lost members.  The lesson has been clear to the Vatican -- no more hiring of actively homosexual priests, no more cover ups.  The devastation to the Church in Ireland has been so strong that no one there any longer trusts their parish priest or bishop.  It will take generations to rebuild trust.

Excellent Points Robert...I know that the Jehovah Witnesses are going through a church wide abuse catastrophe at this very moment. too

Edited July 29, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is no non-weed portion of this topic.

I saw a movie based on a true story about a dimwitted man who undercut things and he turned out to be a serial killer. As Johnnie Cake fits this description what are the implications? Should we imprison him for the safety of all.

Really Country Boy you gave Nehor reputation points for this...I'm disappointed