Sexual Abuse and the Church

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

It requires a very selective and out of context reading to make it apply to modern temple marriage

DC 132 is the basis for Temple marriage. Without it we are just another Christian club.

SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132

[Meadowchik]

33 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

DC 132 is the basis for Temple marriage. Without it we are just another Christian club.

SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132

One can always repeal and replace!

[california boy]

Personally, I think if someone is willing to abuse children, then they pretty much use any justification for their behavior whether rational or not.  When you have Joseph Smith having "spiritual wives" that are 15 years old, is all a predator has to do is rationalize that they are following the example of our great prophet Joseph Smith.  And if God had a problem with 15 year old spiritual wives, He wouldn't have let Joseph Smith be a prophet.  The concept that God would never allow the prophet to lead the church astray has been taught as doctrine from the beginning.  It is a fact of church history.  Eliminate D&C 132 will have no relevance to that kind of thinking for a predator that needs some rationalization to commit abuse.

I think having parents in the room during interviews doesn't help much either unfortunately.  How is a teenager going to be honest with the bishop about morality issues with their parents sitting there.  I think it is safe to say that most teenagers would not be truthful.  Heck, I think most teenagers that are doing something immoral would have a hard time telling the truth to the bishop even if they are alone.  For that matter, I doubt if most adults would confess to immorality if their spouse was sitting in the room either.  Everyone is taught to be secret and lie about immorality.  This isn't just a teenage thing.

So what does the church do?  It is a tough question.  My recommendation is for the parents to wait right outside the door of the bishops office.  Or at least require another adult right in the next room and make the child perfectly aware that someone is on the other side of the door.  If something starts to happen, is all the child has to do is yell and they know the abuse will stop.  It makes any abuse pretty risky.  Predators count on not being caught.  They will take risks, but only if they think they can get away with it.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

One can always repeal and replace!

With what? The bible is chock full of polygamy. The Book of Mormon establishes polygamy when God calls for it. DC 132 puts it in our Church. OD1 limits it to the next life if/until God calls for it. That some people abuse the Scripture is nothing new.

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Personally, I think if someone is willing to abuse children, then they pretty much use any justification for their behavior whether rational or not.  When you have Joseph Smith having "spiritual wives" that are 15 years old, is all a predator has to do is rationalize that they are following the example of our great prophet Joseph Smith.  And if God had a problem with 15 year old spiritual wives, He wouldn't have let Joseph Smith be a prophet.  The concept that God would never allow the prophet to lead the church astray has been taught as doctrine from the beginning.  It is a fact of church history.  Eliminate D&C 132 will have no relevance to that kind of thinking for a predator that needs some rationalization to commit abuse.

I think having parents in the room during interviews doesn't help much either unfortunately.  How is a teenager going to be honest with the bishop about morality issues with their parents sitting there.  I think it is safe to say that most teenagers would not be truthful.  Heck, I think most teenagers that are doing something immoral would have a hard time telling the truth to the bishop even if they are alone.  For that matter, I doubt if most adults would confess to immorality if their spouse was sitting in the room either.  Everyone is taught to be secret and lie about immorality.  This isn't just a teenage thing.

So what does the church do?  It is a tough question.  My recommendation is for the parents to wait right outside the door of the bishops office.  Or at least require another adult right in the next room and make the child perfectly aware that someone is on the other side of the door.  If something starts to happen, is all the child has to do is yell and they know the abuse will stop.  It makes any abuse pretty risky.  Predators count on not being caught.  They will take risks, but only if they think they can get away with it.

Your Presentism is showing. There is no rational excuse for abuse, but when you're looking for an excuse any will do. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think another issue we might have is one shared by Catholics - a strong notion of the vital importance and authority of the organization itself, and a desire to protect its good name

I don't fault a church for having a clergy abuse some kid.  But I fault a church, any church, that thinks it is protecting it's reputation by covering up such incidents.  I would have thought a lot more about the Catholic church if they had turned these priests over to the police and done everything possible to get the guy convicted and sentenced.  

Statements like the judge made about this abuser being a good man makes me only dislike the church more.  I personally think the church should have issued an immediate statement saying that this convicted child abuser was not a good man, and the church not only applauds his conviction, but would actively pursue anyone who dares to use their position in the church to molest anyone, especially children.  Now that would give me more respect for the church.  

[thesometimesaint]

The Church has already made its position concerning this now former member well known. They excommunicated him.

Edited April 16, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Your Presentism is showing. There is no rational excuse for abuse, but when you're looking for an excuse any will do. 

Your remark is so out of line.  I am disgusted with this post.  I NEVER for a moment suggested that I rationalized sexual abuse of a child.  What I said is the those the are predators look for ways to excuse their actions.  You really should apologize to suggest that I rationalized such behavior.  That is disgusting and unwarranted and offensive.  Yeah I am really offended.  

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church has already made its position concerning this now former member well known. They excommunicated him.

Great.  Now they just need to denounce what the judge said about this man.  He is not a good person.  This is an issue that should have absolutely no tolerance.  No leeway.  No excuse.  No softening of seriousness of the crime.

Edited April 16, 2017 by california boy

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Personally, I think if someone is willing to abuse children, then they pretty much use any justification for their behavior whether rational or not.  When you have Joseph Smith having "spiritual wives" that are 15 years old, is all a predator has to do is rationalize that they are following the example of our great prophet Joseph Smith.  And if God had a problem with 15 year old spiritual wives, He wouldn't have let Joseph Smith be a prophet.  The concept that God would never allow the prophet to lead the church astray has been taught as doctrine from the beginning.  It is a fact of church history.  Eliminate D&C 132 will have no relevance to that kind of thinking for a predator that needs some rationalization to commit abuse.

How else should I read your claim? 

[JLHPROF]

D&C 132 will never be decanonized IMO.  And if it were I would pay the action no heed and consider it a meaningless action.  You cannot discredit the recorded words of God using a popular vote.  Unless God speaks and states he never said the things in D&C 132 or that he changed his mind there is no valid justification to remove it.

The fact that a piece of scripture has led to abuse is precisely ZERO reason to get rid of it.  The entire Bible has led to all manner of abuses by wicked men.

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Great.  Now they just need to denounce what the judge said about this man.  He is not a good person.

Of what possible value would that be? 5-20 years in prison pretty well says what the judge thinks of such actions. I can feel sorry for the sinner and still hate the sin.

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church has already made its position concerning this now former member well known. They excommunicated him.

Where was it stated that he has been excommunicated?  I've only read that he was released from being a Bishop.

(I agree that he should be excommunicated now that he is convicted of felonies.)

Edited April 16, 2017 by JulieM

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132 will never be decanonized IMO.  And if it were I would pay the action no heed and consider it a meaningless action.  You cannot discredit the recorded words of God using a popular vote.  Unless God speaks and states he never said the things in D&C 132 or that he changed his mind there is no valid justification to remove it.

The fact that a piece of scripture has led to abuse is precisely ZERO reason to get rid of it.  The entire Bible has led to all manner of abuses by wicked men.

What's wrong with a clearer message when the history does make things fuzzy and more malleable for the careful reader, not to mention someone on a fundamentalist bent? 

Do you think that the church will never return to the days of prolific revelation or even refinement, like as it experienced in the past? I guess if you think one chapter will not be refurbished then that's a solid "No," right? 

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

How else should I read your claim? 

You should read it as I wrote it not how you have twisted it.  THOSE THAT ABUSE CHILDREN LOOK FOR WAYS TO RATIONALIZE THEIR BEHAVIOR.  Joseph Smith can give them that rationalization with his "spiritual wives" concept when he married a 15 year old.  It is church history.  Eliminating the 132 section of the D&C will not eliminate a sexual predators use of church history to rationalize their behavior.  The church can not wipe out it's history to eliminate excuses that a sexual predator may use.  Wiping out 132 is not going to eliminate such rationalization.

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet, in fact, there are still LDS men who use D&C 132 as a pretense for...sexual abuse...

Can you please show me which verse in D&C 132 could possibly be used as a pretense for sexual abuse? 

Edited April 16, 2017 by pogi

[california boy]

47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132 will never be decanonized IMO.  And if it were I would pay the action no heed and consider it a meaningless action.  You cannot discredit the recorded words of God using a popular vote.  Unless God speaks and states he never said the things in D&C 132 or that he changed his mind there is no valid justification to remove it.

The fact that a piece of scripture has led to abuse is precisely ZERO reason to get rid of it.  The entire Bible has led to all manner of abuses by wicked men.

I completely agree.  A concept some people seem to be missing.  If it is not D&C 132, it will be something else.  And quite honestly, Joseph Smith going around marrying 14 year old girls as his "spiritual wives" is a much stronger rational to abuse teenagers than anything that is found in D&C 132.

Is that more clear thesometimesaint?  

Edited April 16, 2017 by california boy

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't fault a church for having a clergy abuse some kid.  But I fault a church, any church, that thinks it is protecting it's reputation by covering up such incidents.  I would have thought a lot more about the Catholic church if they had turned these priests over to the police and done everything possible to get the guy convicted and sentenced.  

Statements like the judge made about this abuser being a good man makes me only dislike the church more.  I personally think the church should have issued an immediate statement saying that this convicted child abuser was not a good man, and the church not only applauds his conviction, but would actively pursue anyone who dares to use their position in the church to molest anyone, especially children.  Now that would give me more respect for the church.  

Even more remarkable to me is when a leader gets in a bind because they previously had good feelings about the abuser before abuse was made known, so they deny that it's possible. We're human and flawed. If we can receive inspiration them it follows that we can falsely receive or interpret feelings.

IMO, "when we know better, we do better," should apply to spiritual experience, too. And belief in Christ should free us up to do better when we know better! He will help us, whatever the truth may be!

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Of what possible value would that be? 5-20 years in prison pretty well says what the judge thinks of such actions. I can feel sorry for the sinner and still hate the sin.

AHHHH, maybe that the church takes this kind of  behavior VERY SERIOUSLY and CLEARLY finds this bishops actions deplorable.  That the church will never stand behind a bishop who commits sexual abuse and will only treat such a man with distain and condemnation.  

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Of what possible value would that be? 5-20 years in prison pretty well says what the judge thinks of such actions.

The judge emotionally stated there was "no doubt" that this convicted rapist is an "extraordinary, good man" with his victims right there to hear.  I think that tells us what the judge thinks.  Then he released him to go home rather than keeping him in custody.

(And, I'd still like a source where it states that he's been excommunicated.)

Edited April 16, 2017 by JulieM

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Even more remarkable to me is when a leader gets in a bind because they previously had good feelings about the abuser before abuse was made known, so they deny that it's possible. We're human and flawed. If we can receive inspiration them it follows that we can falsely receive or interpret feelings.

IMO, "when we know better, we do better," should apply to spiritual experience, too. And belief in Christ should free us up to do better when we know better! He will help us, whatever the truth may be!

I agree.  And I think the church should clearly counsel it's members to go both to the church leaders AND the police in ALL situations of alleged sexual abuse so that the truth can be completely be fleshed out and brought to light.  Clearly members of the church should not be solely relying on the church to deal with sexual abuse.  Nor should they.  These are criminal acts and should ALWAYS be treated as such, even if the guy is a temple president.

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The judge emotionally stated there was "no doubt" that this convicted rapist is an "extraordinary, good man" with his victims right there to hear.  I think that tells us what the judge thinks.  Then he released him to go home rather than keeping him in custody.

Now that makes me want to gag. 

Edited April 16, 2017 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Can you please show me which verse in D&C 132 could possibly be used as a pretense for sexual abuse? 

In particular, 61 thru 65. In light of historical context, the perpetuity of 132 can easily, easily be considered a dog whistle to anyone who feels a preference for taking on wives, including quite young wives.  

Historical context: Joseph and early Saints practiced polygamy while denying it to the rest of the church. Joseph used grand promises dependent on his priesthood authority to persuade girls as young as 14 to marry him.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't fault a church for having a clergy abuse some kid.  But I fault a church, any church, that thinks it is protecting it's reputation by covering up such incidents.  I would have thought a lot more about the Catholic church if they had turned these priests over to the police and done everything possible to get the guy convicted and sentenced.  

Statements like the judge made about this abuser being a good man makes me only dislike the church more.  I personally think the church should have issued an immediate statement saying that this convicted child abuser was not a good man, and the church not only applauds his conviction, but would actively pursue anyone who dares to use their position in the church to molest anyone, especially children.  Now that would give me more respect for the church.  

I agree with a lot of what you've said but I don't understand how something a judge said makes you dislike the church?

 

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In particular, 61 thru 65.

I don't see any pretense for sexual "abuse" in those verses.  

Polygamy is not the same as sexual abuse.  There is no justification for abuse in the D&C.  It does not mention "quite young wives" anywhere.