Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit

[changed]

On 6/12/2018 at 6:49 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

...., this guy's behaviour will not taint the Church from my perspective, ...

Why not?  It was not just one person's bad behavior - it was the behavior of an organization that put this person into the position he was in.

I am dealing with another case right now that is not 34 years old, and it was not just one bad apple - it was everyone around the bad apple who contributed to repeated assault to children happening over years - 10 years in my case.  Year after year after year of children being abused in calling after calling after calling - 

• Are callings from God?
• Are church leaders guided by the spirit?
• Are church leaders properly trained and certified to be working with children? are they certified in the roles they appoint themselves to?

It is an issue with church organization, NOT just one or two or three ... or a book full of bad apples.

 

In 2001, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) paid a three million dollar settlement to Jeremiah Scott, after Scott filed a lawsuit in 1998 against the church for what his attorney described as an attempted cover-up of sexual abuse Scott suffered from church member Franklin Curtis.^[1] The LDS Church denied legal liability in the case, and said it was settling the lawsuit based on "litigation economics" alone.^[1]

In September 2008, LDS Church bishop Timothy McCleve pleaded guilty to sexually molesting children from his ward.^[2] He was sentenced in December 2008 to one-to-15 year prison terms for the abuse.^[3]

In March 2010, former LDS Church bishop Lon Kennard, Sr. was charged with 43 felony counts of sex abuse and sexual exploitation of children, and was imprisoned in Wasatch County, Utah. In November 2011, Kennard was sentenced to three terms of five-years-to-life in prison to be served consecutively, after pleading guilty to three first-degree felony counts of aggravated sex abuse of a child for sexually abusing his daughters.^[4][5]

In December 2013, LDS Church bishop Todd Michael Edwards was sentenced to three years in prison for molesting two teenage girls who attended his congregation in Menifee, California. Edwards received two concurrent sentences of three years in prison for two felony counts of sexual battery and sexual penetration with a foreign object. A felony charge of witness intimidation was dismissed as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors after Edwards pleaded guilty.^[6]

In January 2014, two men filed a lawsuit in the U.S. state of Hawaii against the LDS Church, alleging that they were sexually abused as children on a church-owned pineapple farm in Maui from 1986 through 1988.^[7]

In January 2014, former LDS Church bishop Michael Wayne Coleman was arrested and charged with luring a minor for sexual exploitation after a forensic examination of his laptop and cellphone revealed sexually graphic conversations and an exchange of nude photographs with a teenaged student in Brazil.^[8]

On August 15, 2017, MormonLeaks published a three-hundred and sixteen (316) page document which contained confirmed and alleged instances of child sexual abusebetween 1959 and 2017.^[9]

On October 30, 2017, an Australian court sentenced Darran Scott to 10 years in prison for sexually abusing boys, some of whom he met as a Mormon leader.^[10]  

 

 

[provoman]

23 minutes ago, changed said:

Why not?  It was not just one person's bad behavior - it was the behavior of an organization that put this person into the position he was in.

I am dealing with another case right now that is not 34 years old, and it was not just one bad apple - it was everyone around the bad apple who contributed to repeated assault to children happening over years - 10 years in my case.  Year after year after year of children being abused in calling after calling after calling - 

• Are callings from God?
• Are church leaders guided by the spirit?
• Are church leaders properly trained and certified to be working with children? are they certified in the roles they appoint themselves to?

It is an issue with church organization, NOT just one or two or three ... or a book full of bad apples.

 

 

Is there any insight you can offer as to why parents did not go to police

[Exiled]

20 minutes ago, changed said:

In 2001, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) paid a three million dollar settlement to Jeremiah Scott, after Scott filed a lawsuit in 1998 against the church for what his attorney described as an attempted cover-up of sexual abuse Scott suffered from church member Franklin Curtis.^[1] The LDS Church denied legal liability in the case, and said it was settling the lawsuit based on "litigation economics" alone.^[1]

In September 2008, LDS Church bishop Timothy McCleve pleaded guilty to sexually molesting children from his ward.^[2] He was sentenced in December 2008 to one-to-15 year prison terms for the abuse.^[3]

In March 2010, former LDS Church bishop Lon Kennard, Sr. was charged with 43 felony counts of sex abuse and sexual exploitation of children, and was imprisoned in Wasatch County, Utah. In November 2011, Kennard was sentenced to three terms of five-years-to-life in prison to be served consecutively, after pleading guilty to three first-degree felony counts of aggravated sex abuse of a child for sexually abusing his daughters.^[4][5]

In December 2013, LDS Church bishop Todd Michael Edwards was sentenced to three years in prison for molesting two teenage girls who attended his congregation in Menifee, California. Edwards received two concurrent sentences of three years in prison for two felony counts of sexual battery and sexual penetration with a foreign object. A felony charge of witness intimidation was dismissed as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors after Edwards pleaded guilty.^[6]

In January 2014, two men filed a lawsuit in the U.S. state of Hawaii against the LDS Church, alleging that they were sexually abused as children on a church-owned pineapple farm in Maui from 1986 through 1988.^[7]

In January 2014, former LDS Church bishop Michael Wayne Coleman was arrested and charged with luring a minor for sexual exploitation after a forensic examination of his laptop and cellphone revealed sexually graphic conversations and an exchange of nude photographs with a teenaged student in Brazil.^[8]

On August 15, 2017, MormonLeaks published a three-hundred and sixteen (316) page document which contained confirmed and alleged instances of child sexual abusebetween 1959 and 2017.^[9]

On October 30, 2017, an Australian court sentenced Darran Scott to 10 years in prison for sexually abusing boys, some of whom he met as a Mormon leader.^[10]  

 

The church definitely needs to change its policies regarding the vetting of its leaders.  These numbers are extremely unacceptable.  The church should realize that churches in general create an unreasonable trust relationship between leaders and followers.  Pedophiles love these types of organizations because it is easier to betray that trust when an unreasonable trust is already there.

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

Is there any insight you can offer as to why parents did not go to police

Do you think the church could better its vetting policies for leaders, primary teachers?  Here is another case of a primary teacher charged with sexual abuse of minors: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/06/15/former-mormon-primary-teacher-charged-with-sexually-abusing-a-child-in-his-class/ 

Or do you think it is solely a problem of the members?

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The church definitely needs to change its policies regarding the vetting of its leaders.  These numbers are extremely unacceptable.  The church should realize that churches in general create an unreasonable trust relationship between leaders and followers.  Pedophiles love these types of organizations because it is easier to betray that trust when an unreasonable trust is already there.

ok what changes would prevent or reduce?

 

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Do you think the church could better its vetting policies for leaders, primary teachers?  Here is another case of a primary teacher charged with sexual abuse of minors: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/06/15/former-mormon-primary-teacher-charged-with-sexually-abusing-a-child-in-his-class/ 

Or do you think it is solely a problem of the members?

what "vetting" do you propose would have preventes that from happening? If the abuser does not have a criminal record, what vetti g should be done?

[Atheist Mormon]

41 minutes ago, changed said:

It is an issue with church organization, NOT just one or two or three ... or a book full of bad apples.

Still disagree with you. When you claim Church has an environment which breeds these bad apples I don't think so. That's extreme. I am sure there's some "looking the other way" or "ignorance" is involved. That's magnified many times . 

[Classicslover]

1 hour ago, changed said:

• Are callings from God?
• Are church leaders guided by the spirit?
• Are church leaders properly trained and certified to be working with children? are they certified in the roles they appoint themselves to?

It is an issue with church organization, NOT just one or two or three ... or a book full of bad apples.

It IS systemic, when you realize that we've been forgetting the participation of one key player: The Adversary. He's working to get as many people as he can to leap out of the light.

changed...let's discuss your questions:

- Are callings from God? Answer: Sometimes. When those issuing the callings actually listen to Him. AND are actually worthy of the Spirit.

One of the long line of bishops I had who was racist, was dealing with a brand knew member, fresh out of the baptismal font. This bishop called him to teach the Gospel Doctrine class.

Yep. You read that right.

I asked him "why"? That bishop responded: "Because he's a teacher. He's a professional. So he knows how to do it."

I said: "But he has NO clue about how to teach with the Spirit. THAT is essential. Besides, he should be in a class geared towards new members, LEARNING."

The bishop looked at me blankly. Then blinked a couple of times. Then walked away.

The new member soon felt overwhelmed and left the Church.

There was one of the long line of racist stake presidents who was teaching us all in ward conference setting. HE TOLD US NOT TO PRAY ABOUT ACCEPTING CALLINGS.

Yep. You read that right.

My first thought was: "Well you guys don't actually pray when you extend callings, I guess the thinking is that if people don't pray about accepting callings, you can really leave the Lord out ALTOGETHER. And just do what you want.

This arrogant stake president also went on to say that if you are called as the ward organist, and you don't play the organ...then LEARN!

Yep. You read that right.

I spoke up. i pointed out that it was actually the Adversary's plan to take away people's agency, and that people had the right to pray about whatever they want. I said: "You can't dictate our relationship with God. That's personal."

The whole ward (all who were present) turned on me. How DARE I suggest the stake president is wrong!

I wanted to say, "Well not ONLY wrong but completely un-inspired and mostly an idiot."...but I held my tongue, and instead wrote a letter to the First Presidency.

THAT time I actually got a reply...from the area presidency. They said they were sure the stake president didn't REALLY mean it. They also assured me that every member can indeed pray about anything they want to, including about whether or not to accept callings, and everyone's relationship with Heavenly Father is personal. 

Which was great, EXCEPT where they said they thought he didn't REALLY mean it. OF COURSE HE MEANT IT. He was an arrogant jerk. A tiny tyrant trying to throw his weight around.

So the area presidency ignored the Spirit on that one. Completely ignored the Spirit on that one. They had the chance to get rid of a bad apple AND a legitimate reason to do so: TEACHING FALSE DOCTRINE.

It's like they were dealing with a broken vacuum cleaner now incapable of doing the job, but they toss the lint back onto the floor to give the broken vacuum another chance., but DON'T stick around to check.

And leave us with the mess.

Our stake is vast, many hundreds of miles. This same stake president was tired of travelling. So he applied to divide the stake, KNOWING there were not enough numbers in the top half. Of interest to note, there were not enough numbers in the bottom half either. BUT HE LIED TO THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.

They didn't question him on it. They assumed he did his due diligence and took him at his word.

BIG MISTAKE.

The Spirit only helps if one thinks to use it.

- So that would answer your question regarding: Are Church leaders guided by the Spirit?

As to your third question about training: short answer: no. EXCEPT in regards to some of the ladies they placed in these callings.

I was engaged to a girl who I had met at work, taught and baptized. She had also taken schooling, because she wanted to work in a daycare. Then she did. In fact, she became a daycare manager.

So after working with children at her job...they wanted her to work with children most of the Sabbath day as well. Something she grew to resent.

While I was on scholarship at BYU, another racist bishop got a white boy from out of town to stay with him so he could romance her. That bishop (along with many others) did not like the idea of me dating or marrying a white woman.

My scholarship was for books and tuition. I had to get a government bursary for room and board. She was handling the correspondence.

So, because of racism back home, I abruptly found myself homeless in Provo. 

But at least I was the first one to see the pretty snow falling at night!

I stuck it out for as long as I could, but I had to quit.

Just another example of a leader not using the Spirit.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

It IS systemic, when you realize that we've been forgetting the participation of one key player: The Adversary. He's working to get as many people as he can to leap out of the light.

changed...let's discuss your questions:

- Are callings from God? Answer: Sometimes. When those issuing the callings actually listen to Him. AND are actually worthy of the Spirit.

One of the long line of bishops I had who was racist, was dealing with a brand knew member, fresh out of the baptismal font. This bishop called him to teach the Gospel Doctrine class.

Yep. You read that right.

I asked him "why"? That bishop responded: "Because he's a teacher. He's a professional. So he knows how to do it."

I said: "But he has NO clue about how to teach with the Spirit. THAT is essential. Besides, he should be in a class geared towards new members, LEARNING."

The bishop looked at me blankly. Then blinked a couple of times. Then walked away.

The new member soon felt overwhelmed and left the Church.

There was one of the long line of racist stake presidents who was teaching us all in ward conference setting. HE TOLD US NOT TO PRAY ABOUT ACCEPTING CALLINGS.

Yep. You read that right.

My first thought was: "Well you guys don't actually pray when you extend callings, I guess the thinking is that if people don't pray about accepting callings, you can really leave the Lord out ALTOGETHER. And just do what you want.

This arrogant stake president also went on to say that if you are called as the ward organist, and you don't play the organ...then LEARN!

Yep. You read that right.

I spoke up. i pointed out that it was actually the Adversary's plan to take away people's agency, and that people had the right to pray about whatever they want. I said: "You can't dictate our relationship with God. That's personal."

The whole ward (all who were present) turned on me. How DARE I suggest the stake president is wrong!

I wanted to say, "Well not ONLY wrong but completely un-inspired and mostly an idiot."...but I held my tongue, and instead wrote a letter to the First Presidency.

THAT time I actually got a reply...from the area presidency. They said they were sure the stake president didn't REALLY mean it. They also assured me that every member can indeed pray about anything they want to, including about whether or not to accept callings, and everyone's relationship with Heavenly Father is personal. 

Which was great, EXCEPT where they said they thought he didn't REALLY mean it. OF COURSE HE MEANT IT. He was an arrogant jerk. A tiny tyrant trying to throw his weight around.

So the area presidency ignored the Spirit on that one. Completely ignored the Spirit on that one. They had the chance to get rid of a bad apple AND a legitimate reason to do so: TEACHING FALSE DOCTRINE.

It's like they were dealing with a broken vacuum cleaner now incapable of doing the job, but they toss the lint back onto the floor to give the broken vacuum another chance., but DON'T stick around to check.

And leave us with the mess.

Our stake is vast, many hundreds of miles. This same stake president was tired of travelling. So he applied to divide the stake, KNOWING there were not enough numbers in the top half. Of interest to note, there were not enough numbers in the bottom half either. BUT HE LIED TO THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.

They didn't question him on it. They assumed he did his due diligence and took him at his word.

BIG MISTAKE.

The Spirit only helps if one thinks to use it.

- So that would answer your question regarding: Are Church leaders guided by the Spirit?

As to your third question about training: short answer: no. EXCEPT in regards to some of the ladies they placed in these callings.

I was engaged to a girl who I had met at work, taught and baptized. She had also taken schooling, because she wanted to work in a daycare. Then she did. In fact, she became a daycare manager.

So after working with children at her job...they wanted her to work with children most of the Sabbath day as well. Something she grew to resent.

While I was on scholarship at BYU, another racist bishop got a white boy from out of town to stay with him so he could romance her. That bishop (along with many others) did not like the idea of me dating or marrying a white woman.

My scholarship was for books and tuition. I had to get a government bursary for room and board. She was handling the correspondence.

So, because of racism back home, I abruptly found myself homeless in Provo. 

But at least I was the first one to see the pretty snow falling at night!

I stuck it out for as long as I could, but I had to quit.

Just another example of a leader not using the Spirit.

I do not mean this to be disrespectful in any way, but reading this posts it kind of seems like you always assume that, if there is a disagreement between you and someone else (if they do or say something that you disagree with) that you assume that you are always the one with the spirit in that situation and it's never the other person.

Is that really how you see your experience in the church, that you are always correct when a disagreement with a leader arises, or is your post just coming across wrong?

[USU78]

44 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

It IS systemic, when you realize that we've been forgetting the participation of one key player: The Adversary. He's working to get as many people as he can to leap out of the light.

changed...let's discuss your questions:

- Are callings from God? Answer: Sometimes. When those issuing the callings actually listen to Him. AND are actually worthy of the Spirit.

One of the long line of bishops I had who was racist, was dealing with a brand knew member, fresh out of the baptismal font. This bishop called him to teach the Gospel Doctrine class.

Yep. You read that right.

I asked him "why"? That bishop responded: "Because he's a teacher. He's a professional. So he knows how to do it."

I said: "But he has NO clue about how to teach with the Spirit. THAT is essential. Besides, he should be in a class geared towards new members, LEARNING."

The bishop looked at me blankly. Then blinked a couple of times. Then walked away.

The new member soon felt overwhelmed and left the Church.

There was one of the long line of racist stake presidents who was teaching us all in ward conference setting. HE TOLD US NOT TO PRAY ABOUT ACCEPTING CALLINGS.

Yep. You read that right.

My first thought was: "Well you guys don't actually pray when you extend callings, I guess the thinking is that if people don't pray about accepting callings, you can really leave the Lord out ALTOGETHER. And just do what you want.

This arrogant stake president also went on to say that if you are called as the ward organist, and you don't play the organ...then LEARN!

Yep. You read that right.

I spoke up. i pointed out that it was actually the Adversary's plan to take away people's agency, and that people had the right to pray about whatever they want. I said: "You can't dictate our relationship with God. That's personal."

The whole ward (all who were present) turned on me. How DARE I suggest the stake president is wrong!

I wanted to say, "Well not ONLY wrong but completely un-inspired and mostly an idiot."...but I held my tongue, and instead wrote a letter to the First Presidency.

THAT time I actually got a reply...from the area presidency. They said they were sure the stake president didn't REALLY mean it. They also assured me that every member can indeed pray about anything they want to, including about whether or not to accept callings, and everyone's relationship with Heavenly Father is personal. 

Which was great, EXCEPT where they said they thought he didn't REALLY mean it. OF COURSE HE MEANT IT. He was an arrogant jerk. A tiny tyrant trying to throw his weight around.

So the area presidency ignored the Spirit on that one. Completely ignored the Spirit on that one. They had the chance to get rid of a bad apple AND a legitimate reason to do so: TEACHING FALSE DOCTRINE.

It's like they were dealing with a broken vacuum cleaner now incapable of doing the job, but they toss the lint back onto the floor to give the broken vacuum another chance., but DON'T stick around to check.

And leave us with the mess.

Our stake is vast, many hundreds of miles. This same stake president was tired of travelling. So he applied to divide the stake, KNOWING there were not enough numbers in the top half. Of interest to note, there were not enough numbers in the bottom half either. BUT HE LIED TO THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.

They didn't question him on it. They assumed he did his due diligence and took him at his word.

BIG MISTAKE.

The Spirit only helps if one thinks to use it.

- So that would answer your question regarding: Are Church leaders guided by the Spirit?

As to your third question about training: short answer: no. EXCEPT in regards to some of the ladies they placed in these callings.

I was engaged to a girl who I had met at work, taught and baptized. She had also taken schooling, because she wanted to work in a daycare. Then she did. In fact, she became a daycare manager.

So after working with children at her job...they wanted her to work with children most of the Sabbath day as well. Something she grew to resent.

While I was on scholarship at BYU, another racist bishop got a white boy from out of town to stay with him so he could romance her. That bishop (along with many others) did not like the idea of me dating or marrying a white woman.

My scholarship was for books and tuition. I had to get a government bursary for room and board. She was handling the correspondence.

So, because of racism back home, I abruptly found myself homeless in Provo. 

But at least I was the first one to see the pretty snow falling at night!

I stuck it out for as long as I could, but I had to quit.

Just another example of a leader not using the Spirit.

@Tacenda, this is the perfect example of what I was getting at a year or so ago.  Personalizing gets us nowhere.  You get stuff like this, with the bitterness arising out of an individual's personal perceptions of events, meaningful only to that person, with scattergun accusations against others who cannot, because of legal and ecclesiastical rules, respond and give the possibility of evenhanded treatment of the events.  At the end, there's nothing to be done that looks like a serious, respectful conversation, but rather hide from the kid with the shotgun.

[Classicslover]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do not mean this to be disrespectful in any way, but reading this posts it kind of seems like you always assume that, if there is a disagreement between you and someone else (if they do or say something that you disagree with) that you assume that you are always the one with the spirit in that situation and it's never the other person.

Is that really how you see your experience in the church, that you are always correct when a disagreement with a leader arises, or is your post just coming across wrong?

Hi bluebell! If you recall, I was addressing the questions that "changed" brought up, primarily: Are callings from God? And...Are church leaders guided by the Spirit?

Logical questions, especially given the context she asked them in.

Basically, a "How Can This Happen?" scenario.

So I explained "How this can happen."

WHAT I brought up is situations where callings were NOT from God, and situations where church leaders were NOT guided by the Spirit, and how that came about. 

Plus, my position was backed up by the First Presidency, who the Area Presidency informed me directed them to reply to me. So that means that I was INDEED the one with the Spirit. Means I was right.  

Only it was the area presidency who claimed that the stake president didn't teach false doctrine on purpose.

The reason that I know THAT isn't true, is because it wasn't the first time he did it.

THEN he went on to lie about the numbers in the bottom half of the stake to the First Presidency. And bragged about doing so in the middle of the foyer.

Lying is what the Adversary does. Sooo, yeah. That was VERY wrong. And it's PAINFULLY obvious that it was VERY wrong.

One doesn't lie to the First Presidency about membership numbers...so the First Presidency didn't think to vet what he was saying.

It didn't cross their minds that he was being manipulative because he STILL wanted to be a stake president but he DID NOT want the effort of having to travel so far.

My bishop sent my membership records out of the ward in a racist attempt to get rid of me.

I had to petition the First Presidency to get them back.

They asked the same stake president to give them feedback.

He ignored the request by the First Presidency.

Who DOES that?

And, if I may ask...how exactly would I have been considered at fault?

In fact, the First Presidency sided with me on that as well.

A member of the bishopric came running up to me at church and said: "Your membership records were just sent back to the ward, and we didn't request them. We were wondering who requested that to happen?"

I smiled, and said: "The Prophet."

Here's a hint: I only disagree with the leaders when they are wrong.

People need to accept that happens.

[Classicslover]

54 minutes ago, USU78 said:

this is the perfect example of what I was getting at a year or so ago.  Personalizing gets us nowhere.  You get stuff like this, with the bitterness arising out of an individual's personal perceptions of events, meaningful only to that person, with scattergun accusations against others who cannot, because of legal and ecclesiastical rules, respond and give the possibility of evenhanded treatment of the events.  At the end, there's nothing to be done that looks like a serious, respectful conversation, but rather hide from the kid with the shotgun.

Curious, are you then saying that racism is only meaningful to the person who experiences it?

That right there says there is a lot wrong in the church.

Do you also feel that sexually assault in the church should only be meaningful to those who experience it?

You don't, right?

But the fact that racism exists in the church and the fact that sexual assault exists in the church means that something is VERY wrong and things have gone off the rails.

People hiding their heads in the sand is not going to solve anything.

In fact that PERMITS all that evil to continue.

The Lord has said "By their fruits ye shall know them." The bishop who called the new member to teach gospel doctrine just because he was a "professional" teacher, and in spite of the fact that he knew nothing of teaching with the Spirit and SHOULD have been in a class for new members so he COULD learn...but instead git overwhelmed and left the church highlights it as BAD FRUIT.

But in your mind...that is not an evenhanded treatment of events?

Are you perhaps trying to grasp at some straw that would justify this bishop in doing this?

That! That right there is exactly why evil flourishes in the church.

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Curious, are you then saying that racism is only meaningful to the person who experiences it?

That right there says there is a lot wrong in the church.

Do you also feel that sexually assault in the church should only be meaningful to those who experience it?

You don't, right?

But the fact that racism exists in the church and the fact that sexual assault exists in the church means that something is VERY wrong and things have gone off the rails.

People hiding their heads in the sand is not going to solve anything.

In fact that PERMITS all that evil to continue.

The Lord has said "By their fruits ye shall know them." The bishop who called the new member to teach gospel doctrine just because he was a "professional" teacher, and in spite of the fact that he knew nothing of teaching with the Spirit and SHOULD have been in a class for new members so he COULD learn...but instead git overwhelmed and left the church highlights it as BAD FRUIT.

But in your mind...that is not an evenhanded treatment of events?

Are you perhaps trying to grasp at some straw that would justify this bishop in doing this?

That! That right there is exactly why evil flourishes in the church.

On the other hand  ...  it is not exactly a valorous thing to throw punches at people who cannot punch back.

[Classicslover]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

On the other hand  ...  it is not exactly a valorous thing to throw punches at people who cannot punch back

That would actually only make sense if I didn't already throw my punches IN PERSON.

They got the opportunity to punch back.

They lost.

By your way of thinking, then Alma had no business recounting his encounter with Korihor and Mormon had no business including it in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith had no business translating Alma Chapter 30 for us ALL because Korihor is not around to "punch back"?

(Psst! You didn't really think through your position, did you?)

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

That would actually only make sense if I didn't already throw my punches IN PERSON.

They got the opportunity to punch back.

They lost.

By your way of thinking, then Alma had no business recounting his encounter with Korihor and Mormon had no business including it in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith had no business translating Alma Chapter 30 for us ALL because Korihor is not around to "punch back"?

(Psst! You didn't really think through your position, did you?)

In 1987 Elder Oaks wrote an excellent article that was published in the Ensign which spoke eloquently about how to handle disagreements within the Church, particularly disagreements with leaders.  Here's a link.

Publicly finding fault with leaders is not one of the options he provides.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Classicslover said:

Hi bluebell! If you recall, I was addressing the questions that "changed" brought up, primarily: Are callings from God? And...Are church leaders guided by the Spirit?

Logical questions, especially given the context she asked them in.

Basically, a "How Can This Happen?" scenario.

So I explained "How this can happen."

WHAT I brought up is situations where callings were NOT from God, and situations where church leaders were NOT guided by the Spirit, and how that came about. 

Plus, my position was backed up by the First Presidency, who the Area Presidency informed me directed them to reply to me. So that means that I was INDEED the one with the Spirit. Means I was right.  

Only it was the area presidency who claimed that the stake president didn't teach false doctrine on purpose.

The reason that I know THAT isn't true, is because it wasn't the first time he did it.

THEN he went on to lie about the numbers in the bottom half of the stake to the First Presidency. And bragged about doing so in the middle of the foyer.

Lying is what the Adversary does. Sooo, yeah. That was VERY wrong. And it's PAINFULLY obvious that it was VERY wrong.

One doesn't lie to the First Presidency about membership numbers...so the First Presidency didn't think to vet what he was saying.

It didn't cross their minds that he was being manipulative because he STILL wanted to be a stake president but he DID NOT want the effort of having to travel so far.

My bishop sent my membership records out of the ward in a racist attempt to get rid of me.

I had to petition the First Presidency to get them back.

They asked the same stake president to give them feedback.

He ignored the request by the First Presidency.

Who DOES that?

And, if I may ask...how exactly would I have been considered at fault?

In fact, the First Presidency sided with me on that as well.

A member of the bishopric came running up to me at church and said: "Your membership records were just sent back to the ward, and we didn't request them. We were wondering who requested that to happen?"

I smiled, and said: "The Prophet."

Here's a hint: I only disagree with the leaders when they are wrong.

People need to accept that happens.

I think I get what you are saying, it just doesn’t come across in your favor on a message board, only being one side of the conversation and all.

Disagreeing with someone doesn’t make them wrong and you right, for example, it just means you believe they are wrong and you are right. 

And sometimes when we believe we are right, we actually aren’t. That’s true for all of us sometimes or another. 

[Classicslover]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In 1987 Elder Oaks wrote an excellent article that was published in the Ensign which spoke eloquently about how to handle disagreements within the Church, particularly disagreements with leaders.  Here's a link.

Publicly finding fault with leaders is not one of the options he provides.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are a lawyer. You should know that what you are talking about is obstructing justice. Look it up.

Are you suggesting that NOT talking about racism ALWAYS stops it in it's tracks?

Are you suggesting that NOT talking about sexual assault ALWAYS stops it in it;s tracks?

Silence only helps the oppressor, never the oppressed.

Silence only helps the victimizers, never the victims.

How well does silencing or trying to silence witness go over in the justice system?

Perhaps you should ask Mr. Manafort where witness tampering gets you.

So in a situation where NO members question the actions of leaders and the general authorities don't question the actions of leaders and better yet! NO ONE talks about it...that would be a breeding ground for...what?

Can you guess?

It's a breeding round for evil.

It's why all of those examples that "changed" shared...happened.

It's why people like Bishop thrive.

You cannot justify silence at all.

Even the article you linked: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

You do not have to delve very far into the article to see that Elder Oaks makes a distinction.

"I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom."

THAT is EXACTLY what I am doing. And he has no problem with that.

He said, quote: "My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” 

Are you then suggesting that racism is a fault of "petty nature"?

If so, you should turn in your temple recommend right now.

Further in the article, he quotes President Hinckley: "More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley said: “I am not asking that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction. Strength comes of repentance. Wise is the man who can acknowledge mistakes pointed out by others and change his course."

Which is the exact type of criticism that you are trying to silence.

Did you actually read the article?

 

 

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Still disagree with you. When you claim Church has an environment which breeds these bad apples I don't think so. That's extreme. I am sure there's some "looking the other way" or "ignorance" is involved. That's magnified many times . 

I agree.  The 316 page report deals with alleged cases, thus not all are convictions or proved but past statue of limitations (many did lead to convictions, others settled lawsuits); the report is worldwide (though majority in US) and is almost a 60 year time period (though about half the pages are in the last 20 years); and while some pages have 2 or 3 reports, there are a number of cases that have multiple pages (for example, last case listed was five pages) so probably around 350 total cases I am estimating.  That makes 6 cases a year worldwide (though mostly US, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) where membership numbers were about 1,600,000 in 59 and 16,000,000 in 2017.

This is not to say we should ignore these cases as trivial numbers.  Any case should be thouroughly investigated, taken very, very seriously, imo.  I am only stating the numbers don't reveal a systemwide problem of abuse.

A number of cases are through the Lamanite Program that was discontinued decades ago.  While any valid claims should be recompensed in my view, that program is no longer relevant to church procedures and policies...so does not really work for demonstrated what is wrong with the organization today.

And I just found one case (page 291) that appears to have nothing to do with the Church save the guy was a member, he is described as having acfour decade history as a child abuser due to the fact he fled out of state, lived under a new name, and was finally found four decades later.  The charge was sexual abuse during one Boy Scout camp 4 decades before, that does not appear to be an LDS troop.

"1979, the sheriff's office received complaints from parents who accused Selas of abusing their children during a camping trip near Valentine Lake at Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana. The three-day retreat was promoted by Selas through Ouachita Parish, associated with his TV personality. He promoted the trips for children ages 5-11, according to a flier provided by the sheriff's office.”

This appears to be included to inflate numbers and makes me wonder how many more are the same.

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/6/60/INSTANCES_OF_CHILD_SEXUAL_ABUSE_ALLEGEDLY_PERPETRATED_BY_MEMBERS_OF_THE_CHURCH_OF_JESUS_CHRIST_OF_LATTER-DAY_SAINTS-2017-06.pdf

The presence of these types of cases cut down on the numbers that would support a claim of churchwide culture promoting or protecting predators.  Combined with the fact that half of them were before the hotline and that worldwide cultures the Church organization is planted in vary widely in how they treat predators and children and authoritative figures...I just don't see how the listings provide that much insight as a group and more likely confuse the issues by combining too many different types of cases.  

Edited June 15, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Even the article you linked: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

You do not have to delve very far into the article to see that Elder Oaks makes a distinction.

"I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom."

THAT is EXACTLY what I am doing. And he has no problem with that.

I encourage you to read the entirey of the article.  Including this part: 

Quote

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

With respect, you are not following Elder Oaks' counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Classicslover]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think I get what you are saying, it just doesn’t come across in your favor on a message board, only being one side of the conversation and all.

Disagreeing with someone doesn’t make them wrong and you right, for example, it just means you believe they are wrong and you are right. 

And sometimes when we believe we are right, we actually aren’t. That’s true for all of us sometimes or another. 

As to one side of the conversation...does that mean that Alma should not have recounted his experience with Korihor...and Mormon should not have included that episode in the plates and Joseph Smith had no business translating Alma Chapter 30...all because Korihor is not around to tell his side?

As to your position that "Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong and you right, for example, it just means that you believe they are wrong and you are right."

Well, for example..people who say the earth is flat does not make it any less round.

Truth is truth.

And mostly pretty clear.

The stake president lied. He was wrong to do so. And that's not a matter of opinion. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

As to one side of the conversation...does that mean that Alma should not have recounted his experience with Korihor...

This presupposes that you are Alma and the other guy is Korihor.  "Prophet v. Anti-Christ" isn't usually the way things shake out.

Quote

As to your position that "Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong and you right, for example, it just means that you believe they are wrong and you are right."

Well, for example..people who say the earth is flat does not make it any less round.

This presupposes that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Quote

Truth is truth.

And mostly pretty clear.

The stake president lied. He was wrong to do so. And that's not a matter of opinion. 

With respect, I'm not going to take your say-so as definitive.  I don't know you.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Classicslover]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, you are not following Elder Oaks' counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

With respect, you are not following the scriptures:

Doctrine and Covenants Section 42:

90 And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many.

91 And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.

[Stargazer]

17 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

As to one side of the conversation...does that mean that Alma should not have recounted his experience with Korihor...and Mormon should not have included that episode in the plates and Joseph Smith had no business translating Alma Chapter 30...all because Korihor is not around to tell his side?

As to your position that "Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong and you right, for example, it just means that you believe they are wrong and you are right."

Well, for example..people who say the earth is flat does not make it any less round.

Truth is truth.

And mostly pretty clear.

The stake president lied. He was wrong to do so. And that's not a matter of opinion. 

Sorry this doesn't address any of the points that you're making, but I am wondering why every sentence you write is in its own paragraph?  

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

With respect, you are not following the scriptures:

Doctrine and Covenants Section 42:

90 And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many.

91 And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.

I'll leave you be, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Classicslover]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This presupposes that you are Alma and the other guy is Korihor.  "Prophet v. Anti-Christ" isn't usually the way things shake out.

This presupposes that I stand up for truth against false doctrine. You should try it sometime. It's what the Lord expects of us.
 

 

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This presupposes that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

If the "everyone" in question believes that the earth is flat...then yes.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I'm not going to take your say-so as definitive.  I don't know you.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Means that you are doubting the Native American before you about experiencing racist abuse in the Church.

This is why racist abuse continues. You are aiding and abetting by doubting the victim.

Is this a racist thing on your part? I hope not.

What do the Church guidelines say about abuse?