CV75 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 15 minutes ago, bluebell said: It seems weird to make accusations about what the posters in the thread are trying to do without paying attention to what has actually been said in the thread and by whom. I agree though that we are only a day in and things are likely to evolve. 16 out of 25 posts on the first page were about what I said they were, and I counted another 4 before I said it, and other 3 after that...
MDalby Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 Quote Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, “‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.) (Dallin H Oaks, CR, Criticism, Latter-day Saint Student Association fireside in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on 4 May 1986)
jkwilliams Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, CV75 said: 16 out of 25 posts on the first page were about what I said they were, and I counted another 4 before I said it, and other 3 after that... Other than a few posts about church leaders not having discernment, I'm not seeing what you are. Frankly, it's preferable to air the truth, even if it means taking someone or some institution down a peg, than it is to keep things quiet for fear of upsetting someone. 1
smac97 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 1 hour ago, CV75 said: Quote I agree with the sentiment here. I think we need to be very circumspect, tactful, and solemn in discussing such serious topics. No room for sarcasm, levity, etc. Yes, MormonLeaks is every bit of that! We cannot control what MormonLeaks does. We can only control our own behavior. Thanks, -Smac
rockpond Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 18 hours ago, sunstoned said: This has just been released and is generating a lot of discussion. The accused is a former MTC mission president and author of two books carried by Desert Book. However, today Deseret Book has pulled his books from circulation. https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/03/19/mormonleaks-releases-of-former-mormon-mission-president-admitting-inappropriate-interactions/ I think the issue of sexual abuse and how the church responds (or fails to respond) will become a part of President Nelson's legacy. Consider current events: Church support of the two-party recording law on the heels of... This fairly devastating audio recording The Protect the Children (Sam Young) petition, compilation of accounts of abuse, and march at church headquarters The "Me Too" movement 2
Duncan Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 Just now, rockpond said: I think the issue of sexual abuse and how the church responds (or fails to respond) will become a part of President Nelson's legacy. Consider current events: Church support of the two-party recording law on the heels of... This fairly devastating audio recording The Protect the Children (Sam Young) petition, compilation of accounts of abuse, and march at church headquarters The "Me Too" movement what is a two party recording? both parties have to consent to being recorded or what is the other option? a one party or three party recording?
Popular Post blueglass Posted March 20, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) Unfortunately just like at BYU with the title ix and shaming associated with honor code violations where BYU and the church fought hard against the SLTrib investigation and reporting, I see the same here with sex abuse among mormon leadership, interviews and sexual counseling by amateur/unlicensed lay leadership. Finally BYU after story after story making national news from the SLTrib the leadership finally backed down and finally formed a committee and implemented all of the recommendations made. My friend a full time psychologist and counselor at BYU was in tears when they finally made the changes he had been pushing for years. The institution rebelled against it kicking and screaming and denying - but finally they did it. Same here for leadership and sexual abuse it will take national story after national story, heavy litigation and inside heroes who do the right thing to finally make the changes necessary. Edited March 20, 2018 by blueglass 5
sunstoned Posted March 20, 2018 Author Posted March 20, 2018 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: We cannot control what MormonLeaks does. We can only control our own behavior. Thanks, -Smac MormonLeaks didn't do anything except to shed light on some very troubling actions by a church leader. Apparently, brother Bishop could not control his own behavior. Apparently the church didn't do anything about it. Someone needed to speak up. Changes need to be made so that these types of things will not be repeated. 2
bluebell Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, Duncan said: what is a two party recording? both parties have to consent to being recorded or what is the other option? a one party or three party recording? Yes, two party recording means that both parties involved (the one recording and the one being recorded) have to consent. One party recording means that only the person doing the recording has not know about it, the other person does not have to be told they are being recorded. 3
Popular Post The Nehor Posted March 20, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) Just read the whole thing. That was weird and horrifying. I feel sorry for her, pity for both of them, but also want to punch him in the face repeatedly. In the beginning it seemed like it was a trap targeting an old guy and getting him to say what she wanted but by the middle it was pretty clear he did some monstrous stuff. I tend to treat sexual sin as less serious than many LDS often do but predatory sexual sin makes my blood boil. Edited March 20, 2018 by The Nehor 7
drums12 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Hogwash, Adam. The notion that the Brethren are to be "sustained" no matter what seems pretty ignorant to me. I don't mind giving the benefit of the doubt to someone I don't actually know, but the idea that everyone is automatically O.K. in every respect is just silly. In scouting we now have a tight vetting process and strict rules to prevent molestation. It wouldn't hurt to have some sort of "internal affairs" unit throughout the Church to investigate rumors and run simple background checks. Even in law enforcement, with all the backgrounding they do, some bad actors still get sworn in and create real problems. The LDS Church is not going to be any different. We should put aside our childish notions that everything will always be hunky dory in the Church. It isn't, and it never was. It is a human organization. Brigham Young said: Perhaps it's hogwash to many, but I was speaking of my perception. No doubt I was quite ignorant for much of my life. In my defense, I read much outside of correlated materials, but it was largely the writings of Bruce R McConkie and his father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith. I had no idea that Dialogue or Sunstone or the Mormon History Association existed. Your Brigham Young quote is appropriate, and I believe what Brother Brigham feared has come to pass in the mindset of many modern Mormons. I grew up in a home with "When the Prophet Speaks, the Debate is Over" hanging on the wall. I could quote myriad general conference talks in the past 40-50 years which could be interpreted by many ignorant youth such as myself that we are safe to have complete confidence in the Brethren, especially the President of the Church. In my mind this extended, although to a lesser degree, to local leaders like Bishops and Stake Presidents. So yes, I put too much faith in fallible humans. In my defense, that was my interpretation of things I was taught at home and in Church. I don't wish to give the impression that I believe Church leaders, by and large, are going to screw things up by default, nor that it should be assumed they aren't correct in most things they teach and counsel they give. I believe most local and general authorities have sincere intent and are good men and women. My point is that there is in much of Mormon culture a belief that because of one's calling, one has more or less access to God. Prophets aren't sock puppets through which God reveals His will unalloyed, but I know there are members of the Church who essentially believe this. I was one of them. Edited March 20, 2018 by drums12
CA Steve Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 49 minutes ago, CV75 said: 16 out of 25 posts on the first page were about what I said they were, and I counted another 4 before I said it, and other 3 after that... Which is more important? This information coming to light or the source and manner it is being conveyed? Because frankly I think the former is a lot more important than the latter. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Wow, track your positives and ignore negatives. It seems like this was his MO. Besides all the other problematic issues that were revealed in this recording, I found it especially disturbing that Mr. Bishop continued to try and fix his problem without professional help and without real accountability for his actions. Ignore negatives? Is this part of the culture of Mormonism? I surely hope its not, however I worry about the precedents set by early church leaders, the deceptions that were perpetuated, the cover-ups, and lack of accountability for mistakes made. Even the we don't apologize ideal espoused in recent years by President Oaks. It seems to me that our Mormon culture has a serious problem here. I'm not familiar with the We do not apologize scenario. As an ideal espoused by then Elder Oaks? Have never heard that, but then maybe I wasn't paying attention. Could you cite the source of that false doctrine? I have always found Mormon culture to be very humane, and to emphasize the need for repentance on a regular basis. That also applies to false claims of cover-ups and lack of accountability. Are you sure that you haven't got the Mormons confused with the evangelicals? They do that sort of thing all the time you know.
Oliblish Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 I have not listened to the recording yet but I plan to. This is personal to me because President Bishop ordained me to the Melchizedek Priesthood when I entered the MTC. (I went in to the MTC unprepared because my parents had just separated - a long story). From what I have learned so far the alleged sexual abuse started while he was a bishop before he was a mission president in Argentina. He then became the MTC President. I find all of this extremely disturbing. I will listen to the recording before making further comments. 1
Storm Rider Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 22 minutes ago, blueglass said: Unfortunately just like at BYU with the title ix and shaming associated with honor code violations where BYU and the church fought hard against the SLTrib investigation and reporting, I see the same here with sex abuse among mormon leadership, interviews and sexual counseling by amateur/unlicensed lay leadership. Finally BYU after story after story making national news from the SLTrib the leadership finally backed down and finally formed a committee and implemented all of the recommendations made. My friend a full time psychologist and counselor at BYU was in tears when they finally made the changes he had been pushing for years. The institution rebelled against it kicking and screaming and denying - but finally they did it. Same here for leadership and sexual abuse it will take national story after national story, heavy litigation and inside heroes who do the right thing to finally make the changes necessary. Gads, I hate this type of weeping, drama filled propaganda. Please, if you are trying to enroll thinking individuals in a cause, please, please, please do not attempt to use this kind of diatribe. It shuts me down immediately; I walk away without listening to such. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, drums12 said: Perhaps it's hogwash to many, but I was speaking of my perception. No doubt I was quite ignorant for much of my life. In my defense, I read much outside of correlated materials, but it was largely the writings of Bruce R McConkie and his father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith. I had no idea that Dialogue or Sunstone or the Mormon History Association existed. Your Brigham Young quote is appropriate, and I believe what Brother Brigham feared has come in the mindset of many modern Mormons. I grew up in a home with "When the Prophet Speaks, the Debate is Over" hanging on the wall. I could quote myriad general conference talks in the past 40-50 years which could be interpreted by many ignorant youth such as myself that we are safe to have complete confidence in the Brethren, especially the President of the Church. In my mind this extended, although to a lesser degree, to local leaders like Bishops and Stake Presidents. So yes, I put too much faith in fallible humans. In my defense, that was my interpretation of things I was taught at home and in Church. I understand. All of us were young and ignorant at one time. I more than most, but I never had the rigid upbringing you experienced, so I was able to roll with the punches and disappointments which life delivered. I often still wear rose-colored glasses and like to believe that everyone is sincere, that all my leaders are inspired. But I know that I will be disappointed once in a while, in others, and in myself. Joseph used to say that "If you will bear with my shortcomings, I will bear with yours." We can't ask much more than that from each other. We need to oft speak kind words to each other, Adam, and to count our many blessings. This life is not perfect, but it will end soon enough, and then we will have an eternity to mull it over. Right now, it is upon us to do the best we can with what we have. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. 2
CA Steve Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I'm not familiar with the We do not apologize scenario. As an ideal espoused by then Elder Oaks? Have never heard that, but then maybe I wasn't paying attention. Could you cite the source of that false doctrine? I have always found Mormon culture to be very humane, and to emphasize the need for repentance on a regular basis. That also applies to false claims of cover-ups and lack of accountability. Are you sure that you haven't got the Mormons confused with the evangelicals? They do that sort of thing all the time you know. Hi Robert. A simple Google search of Dallin Oaks & "the church does not seek apologies or give them" will give you lots of background on that statement from President Oaks. Here is the first hit I got. No apology? Really? Mormons question leader Dallin H. Oaks' stance -SLC Trib 2015 article 2
CA Steve Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Gads, I hate this type of weeping, drama filled propaganda. Please, if you are trying to enroll thinking individuals in a cause, please, please, please do not attempt to use this kind of diatribe. It shuts me down immediately; I walk away without listening to such. I know, right? It's not like they award Pulitzer prizes for that kind of propaganda. 1
cinepro Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, rockpond said: I think the issue of sexual abuse and how the church responds (or fails to respond) will become a part of President Nelson's legacy. Consider current events: Church support of the two-party recording law on the heels of... This fairly devastating audio recording The Protect the Children (Sam Young) petition, compilation of accounts of abuse, and march at church headquarters The "Me Too" movement If the world (and critics of the Church) get to dictate what does or doesn't become a part of Nelson's "legacy", then I would advise him to not worry about his "legacy" going forward and just focus on the things he feels are the most important, legacy be darned. Edited March 20, 2018 by cinepro 4
drums12 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I'm not familiar with the We do not apologize scenario. As an ideal espoused by then Elder Oaks? Have never heard that, but then maybe I wasn't paying attention. Could you cite the source of that false doctrine? I have always found Mormon culture to be very humane, and to emphasize the need for repentance on a regular basis. That also applies to false claims of cover-ups and lack of accountability. Are you sure that you haven't got the Mormons confused with the evangelicals? They do that sort of thing all the time you know. Here's a link to a BCC article that quotes Elder Oaks. https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/01/28/all-apologies/ I was quite disturbed by Elder Oaks' comments on one hand. On the other hand, I understand the Church as an institution can't go around apologizing to every group or individual who thinks they/he/she has been wronged. I know the President Hinckley apologized to Pastor Chip Murray back in 2005 or 2006 for hurts the Church may have caused. I loved President Hinckley's humility. Frankly, sometimes I don't feel much humility from certain members of the 12/FP these days. However, I admit that I don't know them personally, have spend no time around them, and my own pride probably colors my perceptions. 2
rockpond Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, cinepro said: If the world (and critics of the Church) get to dictate what does or doesn't become a part of Nelson's "legacy", then I would advise him to not worry about his "legacy" going forward and just focus on the things he feels are the most important, legacy be darned. No, President Nelson gets to dictate his legacy. That was my point. 1
drums12 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I understand. All of us were young and ignorant at one time. I more than most, but I never had the rigid upbringing you experienced, so I was able to roll with the punches and disappointments which life delivered. I often still wear rose-colored glasses and like to believe that everyone is sincere, that all my leaders are inspired. But I know that I will be disappointed once in a while, in others, and in myself. Joseph used to say that "If you will bear with my shortcomings, I will bear with yours." We can't ask much more than that from each other. We need to oft speak kind words to each other, Adam, and to count our many blessings. This life is not perfect, but it will end soon enough, and then we will have an eternity to mull it over. Right now, it is upon us to do the best we can with what we have. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. I agree with you. I appreciate this. My favorite quote from Joseph Smith is this: “Nothing is so much calculated to lead people to forsake sin as to take them by the hand and to watch over them in tenderness. When persons manifest the least kindness and love to me, O what pow'r it has over my mind.” We can all be more kind 2
rockpond Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, drums12 said: Here's a link to a BCC article that quotes Elder Oaks. https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/01/28/all-apologies/ I was quite disturbed by Elder Oaks' comments on one hand. On the other hand, I understand the Church as an institution can't go around apologizing to every group or individual who thinks they/he/she has been wronged. I know the President Hinckley apologized to Pastor Chip Murray back in 2005 or 2006 for hurts the Church may have caused. I loved President Hinckley's humility. Frankly, sometimes I don't feel much humility from certain members of the 12/FP these days. However, I admit that I don't know them personally, have spend no time around them, and my own pride probably colors my perceptions. I agree that the church can't "go around apologizing to every group or individual who thinks they/he/she has been wronged". But, following its own teachings, Church leaders should apologize, on behalf of the institution, when it becomes clear that wrongs have been committed by the organization, even in the past. 3
hope_for_things Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I'm not familiar with the We do not apologize scenario. As an ideal espoused by then Elder Oaks? Have never heard that, but then maybe I wasn't paying attention. Could you cite the source of that false doctrine? I have always found Mormon culture to be very humane, and to emphasize the need for repentance on a regular basis. That also applies to false claims of cover-ups and lack of accountability. Are you sure that you haven't got the Mormons confused with the evangelicals? They do that sort of thing all the time you know. Looks like CA Steve beat me to the punch with the SL Trib link, I'm surprised you missed this as its regularly talked about. I found Elder Oaks' reasoning that the word apology isn't found in the scriptures to be especially disturbing. Mormons have many problems as do evangelicals and other groups. I think the problems I discussed aren't unique to religious organizations, but they can be especially acute with respect to religions. As for cover-ups and poor accountability, just look at Nauvoo Polygamy or the Mountain Meadows massacre as case in point examples of major problems in Mormon history, and I think as evidenced by Elder Oak's position, illogical reasoning and moral rationalization continues into the present day. 1
CV75 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 40 minutes ago, smac97 said: We cannot control what MormonLeaks does. We can only control our own behavior. Thanks, -Smac The thread's headline same across to me as "Canterburyesque," hence my lack of "circumspect, tactful, and solemn" treatment toward it. 42 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Other than a few posts about church leaders not having discernment, I'm not seeing what you are. Frankly, it's preferable to air the truth, even if it means taking someone or some institution down a peg, than it is to keep things quiet for fear of upsetting someone. And here we have another post about the virtues of taking someone or some institution down a peg. Oh, and here: Posted 12 minutes ago ... they're all over the place! Not to mention the ones about not focusing on that. Are you suggesting I've been quiet? LOL I've seen maybe one of two posts (not mine!) about what I think the most important issue is, and even those have been is very Church-centric. Let's see if the #1 problem actually gains any traction.
Recommended Posts