In 2013 a mission president was removed for misconduct

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why is it condescending to say that believing what our leaders say without spiritually verifying it for ourselves is spiritually immature, especially when I included "I'm not saying that in a judgmental way.  It's all part of the process of becoming like Christ.  It's a work in progress for all of us and we all have a messed up understanding of the gospel in different areas" my post?

Spiritual immaturity is not an insult.  We can't grow in the gospel if we don't start out immature.

Of course calling someone spiritually immature is an insult because it lowers their spirituality and raises yours. If you were as spiritually mature as I am you wouldn't have fallen for it. You wouldn't say it that way but the implication is the same. It's condescending IMO.

You're assuming that the individual didn't seek confirmation. You're assuming the individual didn't feel a spiritual witness. It's essentially blaming the victim. In this case, the victim is the individual who believed what the leader said when they shouldn't have.

[Storm Rider]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Unfortunately I think that is what she believes.  It is interesting the strange ideas that get into peoples heads when they leave the church. 

The story, in this case played out exactly as it should have.  I have seen it played out locally many times.  Misconduct is found out and the person doing it is released and usually excommunicated.  Never, in my experience has anyone said that being a leader excuses ones sins.  I have found that when one is a leader, if anything they are more likely to receive church discipline. 

That is also what I have witnessed in my life in the Church.  More importantly, once sin is discovered the Church moves quickly when it involves a leader.  This is only my experience and I cannot say how it unfolds in other parts of the world nor does my experience negate the experience of others living in other areas.

As children we teach each individual to gain a spiritual testimony of each truth; to pray about what leaders say over the pulpit - the purpose is that each individual knows they are responsible for their own testimony.  Following blindly; particularly into sin; is not the plan, is not what is taught; and has no part in the Church. 

[Danzo]

5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

 

Im not sure excommunication was enough punishment for this man who clearly did something very wrong.

 

I read the article, I don't see where it mentions a crime was committed.   

Most things people get excommunicated for are not crimes.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes, that's exactly why so much evil is done in the name of religion.  It's very easy for people who claim to speak for God to misuse that trust.  Does that mean that no one should ever claim to speak for God?  Does that mean that religion is itself evil?   No, of course not.

No one should ever think that having a calling or is on it's own God's personal stamp of approval.   I was never taught that growing up and I got the standard typical church upbringing.

Uh...so you were never told that God approves of someone's church calling?  In your standard typical church upbringing no one ever suggested in anyway that God was behind the callings that your fellow ward members held?  

[Danzo]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Uh...so you were never told that God approves of someone's church calling?  In your standard typical church upbringing no one ever suggested in anyway that God was behind the callings that your fellow ward members held?  

Approval of someone's calling is not the same as approval of that persons behavior while holding that calling.  

[stemelbow]

Just now, Danzo said:

Approval of someone's calling is not the same as approval of that persons behavior while holding that calling.  

I can agree with that.  Thanks.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Uh...so you were never told that God approves of someone's church calling? 

Yes, but I've never been told that God approves of that someone's misconduct while holding that calling.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In your standard typical church upbringing no one ever suggested in anyway that God was behind the callings that your fellow ward members held?  

I think the Church encourages us to have faith generally in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Faith in Christ is at the center.  A more generalized faith in the Restoration is there also.  We are asked to "sustain" the General Authorities as part of this.  That is not blind obedience.  We are not agreeing to convert ourselves into mindless automatons.  Instead, we proceed in faith, which I think generally involves what could be characterized as a rebuttable presumption that the leaders of the Church are acting in accordance with the will of God, but with a rather strong caveat that they are also human and can make mistakes. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

He wouldn't be the only Mormon who at some point starts to think that there should be an exception for his exceptional self.

Or human for that matter.

That there are Mormons who break the rules is not the issue. The issue is how does the Church handle those that break the rules.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but I've never been told that God approves of that someone's misconduct while holding that calling.

I think the Church encourages us to have faith generally in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Faith in Christ is at the center.  A more generalized faith in the Restoration is there also.  We are asked to "sustain" the General Authorities as part of this.  That is not blind obedience.  We are not agreeing to convert ourselves into mindless automatons.  Instead, we proceed in faith, which I think generally involves what could be characterized as a rebuttable presumption that the leaders of the Church are acting in accordance with the will of God, but with a rather strong caveat that they are also human and can make mistakes. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks Smac.  I asked those questions of bluebell to be clear, due to what she had said.  I'm glad to have your answers to those questions, they certainly align well with what I would see as a very Mormon point of view (and you should take that as a compliment).  

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks Smac.  I asked those questions of bluebell to be clear, due to what she had said.  I'm glad to have your answers to those questions, they certainly align well with what I would see as a very Mormon point of view (and you should take that as a compliment).  

I hope I never take "Mormon" as an insult.  It's a badge I am willing to wear.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

I'm the treasurer of my HOA.  Every yearly meeting, we have one or two people angry that we're not "doing something" because some neighbor is doing something wrong.  We've become a broken record.  "Ma'am, about the only thing the HOA can do, is remove a member's voting rights, and take them to court when they won't pay money they owe us.  We can't really do anything else.  We're not your parents, or your teachers, we're not law enforcement.  We can't make anyone do anything.  We don't have a court system, or a jail to put anyone in.  We are your neighbors, and that's about all.  As a neighbor, may I suggest you call the nonemergency number for the local cops, and take things up with them?"

I'm also a member of a church.  I only have to change, is "HOA" to "church", and replace the consequences with "alert the authorities and excommunicate someone".  

I mean, I'm really, really sorry that so many people are having their 'evil things humans do' roller coaster ride with this news story.  Try to grow some healthy perspective people.   Think about logical extremes and unintended consequences.  Do you really want a church to have it's own police force?  Court system that allows removing rights from the convicted?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course calling someone spiritually immature is an insult because it lowers their spirituality and raises yours. If you were as spiritually mature as I am you wouldn't have fallen for it. You wouldn't say it that way but the implication is the same. It's condescending IMO.

I’m not sure how it does that when you are calling yourself spiritually immature at the same time. 

But it doesn’t really matter and isn’t worth continuing spending energy on. 

[Marginal Gains]

Quote

Elder Cornish said that after some discussion among some very senior Brethren it was decided that President would be released so he and Sister Smartt could go back to get the very best medical help available.

http://kenpatterson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/gunshots.html

Somebody wasn’t  telling the truth.

[Marginal Gains]

 

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not when these young adults are conditioned to believe their leaders are called of God. 

 

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that the church conditions young adults to believe that a leader who sexually abuses them is called of God? 

As I posted earlier in the thread, the missionary handbook briefs the missionary that their Mission President is second only to God. Now the missionary’s that are most likely to take that to heart and not question it, are those same vulnerable missionaries that predators like Bishop and Smartt will actively target.

That there is no protocol clearly in place for missionaries to report Mission President wrong doing, five years after the Smartt incident, is negligence.

[Jeanne]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope I never take "Mormon" as an insult.  It's a badge I am willing to wear.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am sure you badge is for life...no matter what.😌

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

As I posted earlier in the thread, the missionary handbook briefs the missionary that their Mission President is second only to God. Now the missionary’s that are most likely to take that to heart and not question it, are those same vulnerable missionaries that predators like Bishop and Smartt will actively target.

That there is no protocol clearly in place for missionaries to report Mission President wrong doing, five years after the Smartt incident, is negligence.

Is this overstating things a bit?

Do you have a reference?

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

http://kenpatterson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/gunshots.html

Somebody wasn’t  telling the truth.

I can understand why they used a cover story...things unfolded very quickly. I would not want the sisters gossiped about and a thorough investigation had not been done. But, it was still a lie. 

The biggest problem about not publicly reporting these allegations, is the ability of  the perpetrators to continue their bad acts. 

I struggle with this in my own life but the victims just want to move on and heal...I will not make an accusation on their behalf and subject them to something they don’t feel able to handle. 

[Marginal Gains]

27 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

 

As I posted earlier in the thread, the missionary handbook briefs the missionary that their Mission President is second only to God. Now the missionary’s that are most likely to take that to heart and not question it, are those same vulnerable missionaries that predators like Bishop and Smartt will actively target.

That there is no protocol clearly in place for missionaries to report Mission President wrong doing, five years after the Smartt incident, is negligence.

 

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is this overstating things a bit?

Do you have a reference?

Quote

Your loyalty is first to the Lord, then to your mission president, then to your companion.

Edited to insert correct link (thanks Stem.)

https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary-handbook/missionary-conduct?lang=eng

Edited April 26, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I read the article, I don't see where it mentions a crime was committed.   

Most things people get excommunicated for are not crimes.

Do we know when he was excommunicated?  Seems he's been arrested a few times for other things too.

Here's a domestic violence case (or "dating violence) against him in 2016:

http://74.174.28.52/BMWebLatest/CourtCase.aspx/Details/2252789?digest=C3P5w3FRKP26tzdcCiKfxw

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary-handbook/missionary-organization?lang=eng

wrong linked page:

https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary-handbook/missionary-conduct?lang=eng

under missionary conduct not organization.  

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Your loyalty is first to the Lord, then to your mission president, then to your companion.

https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary-handbook/missionary-organization?lang=eng

Yikes! I didn't remember that. Thanks for sharing.

ETA: The complete paragraph reads

Quote

Obey the standards of missionary conduct and the rules of the mission. If you notice any inappropriate situation or behavior, discuss it with your companion. If the matter is not resolved, have the courage and love for your companion to ask your mission president for help. Violations of missionary standards may threaten your companion’s effectiveness and even his or her salvation. Care enough for your companion to ask for help from your mission president before a problem becomes serious. Your loyalty is first to the Lord, then to your mission president, then to your companion.

I think this is specifically placing a hierarchy of loyalty so that companions feel free to tattle on the companion if necessary. I'm not sure it is saying the Mission Pres is second only to God in general, but only in relation to the missionary's relationship to the companion , but I see where you're coming from. The implication is there.

Edited April 26, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

 

As I posted earlier in the thread, the missionary handbook briefs the missionary that their Mission President is second only to God. Now the missionary’s that are most likely to take that to heart and not question it, are those same vulnerable missionaries that predators like Bishop and Smartt will actively target.

That there is no protocol clearly in place for missionaries to report Mission President wrong doing, five years after the Smartt incident, is negligence.

I served a mission and the missionaries in my mission definitely didn't see the mission president as second to God.  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yikes! I didn't remember that. Thanks for sharing.

I must be missing it.  Where does this link say that?

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I must be missing it.  Where does this link say that?

https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary-handbook/missionary-conduct?lang=eng

I corrected the link above.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary-handbook/missionary-conduct?lang=eng

I corrected the link above.

Could you paste the relevant part that you are referring to?