Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it could be an interesting exercise to go back and review HJW's posts to see how often he has insisted on referring to General Authorities by their titles, including those who are currently serving in that capacity.

I suspect that strict adherence to referring to priesthood holders by their formal titles has only recently become an imperative.  And that it's only an imperative for Sam Young.

Alas, I'm not really that interested.

-Smac

 

CFR that I've "insisted" that people call Sam Young "bishop". I have explained why I do. I have theorized about why some don't. I have never insisted anyone do anything they aren't comfortable with. You really need to stop misrepresenting me. Making up the issue about Daniel Peterson is the height of stupidity. It makes you look very foolish. Seriously. I've explained why I use titles for some people. It has to do with respect. Sometimes it has to do with ease, and laziness, and sometimes it's simply not paying attention. I don't always refer to Sam Young as bishop young either. But it's true, that if I have greater respect for Sam Young than I do for someone like Daniel Peterson, I am more likely to use their title.

Congratulations on a successful threadjack. You should be very proud.

Quote

I'm saying his ordination is dormant.

That's what you're saying now, after being called on the outright falsehood of stating "no he's not" to another poster's statement that he's a bishop. But you explained why you felt justified in saying something you knew was incorrect but I do appreciate how you're now adjusting your argument to be more accurate.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CFR that I've "insisted" that people call Sam Young "bishop".

I stand corrected, then.  I shouldn't have said that.  My apologies.

Quote

Making up the issue about Daniel Peterson is the height of stupidity. It makes you look very foolish. Seriously. I've explained why I use titles for some people. It has to do with respect.

The guy vilifying the bishops and general authorities of the Church, the guy accusing anyone who doesn't vote the way he wants them to of "destroying" the Church and betraying Jesus Christ, nevertheless merits being called by a dormant honorific of "Bishop."

But Daniel Peterson does not merit being called "Bishop Peterson."  And Mitt Romney does not merit being called "Bishop Romney."

Sam Young merits your "respect."  Daniel Peterson and Mitt Romney do not.

I get it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 31, 2018 by smac97

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And so on.  Ad infinitum.

Come on, just because limits might be placed on bishops doesn't mean we have to limit THE WORLD.  Limits are placed on topics that can be discussed with children all the time without limiting other areas. I am sure you wouldn't want a teacher or coach giving these types of interviews to children and yet doctors still practice medicine, lawyers practice law and people drive cars.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Come on, just because limits might be placed on bishops doesn't mean we have to limit THE WORLD.  

Why?  "One is too many," after all.

We have all sorts of safeguards in place for vehicular safety.  Restrictions on who can drive, and how fast, etc.  We have penalties for driving while intoxicated, or driving ngligently or recklessly, etc.  And yet we still have huge numbers of people injured or killed every year by drunk / negligent / reckless drivers.  

"I am sure the percentage of drunk / negligent / reckless drivers is quite small, but one is too many."  How is that materially different from your statement?

Alarmism and moral panic is not a good way to figure out sound policy. 

Quote

Limits are placed on topics that can be discussed with children all the time without limiting other areas.

Yes.  And the Church already has those limits in place.  And some bishops nevertheless contravene those limits, just like we have drivers who drive drunk.  

Quote

I am sure you wouldn't want a teacher or coach giving these types of interviews to children and yet doctors still practice medicine, lawyers practice law and people drive cars.

"These types of interviews?"  I'm not sure what that means.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 31, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I stand corrected, then.  I shouldn't have said that.  My apologies.

The guy vilifying the bishops and general authorities of the Church, the guy accusing anyone who doesn't vote the way he wants them to of "destroying" the Church and betraying Jesus Christ, nevertheless merits being called by a dormant honorific of "Bishop."

But Daniel Peterson does not merit being called "Bishop Peterson."  And Mitt Romney does not merit being called "Bishop Romney."

Sam Young merits your "respect."  Daniel Peterson and Mitt Romney do not.

I get it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for correcting yourself again. I appreciate it.

It's funny because this all started with posters on your side of this argument getting upset with people who refer to Sam Young as Bishop Young. Referring to Sam Young is accurate and does not violate any church guidelines, yet some are very offended by it. That's fine. You and others can waste your time being offended by it, but when you and/or others accuse me of nefarious motives, as if I'm trying to be dishonest, then I'll fight back against that.

When and where any person refers to someone as "bishop", whether it be Sam Young, Daniel Peterson, Mitt Romney, or HappyJackWagon, is totally up to them. I like Mitt, so I wouldn't have any problem referring to him as Bishop in a church context, but he's most well known for his politics so it doesn't usually fit. IMO it would be more harmful to Mitt to refer to him as Bishop Romney so it wouldn't be my first choice. BTW- totally random thread you found that I started about Mitt and it doesn't answer my CFR about me ever talking about Daniel Peterson.

Not only did I not know he was a Bishop, but it is very strange to have to defend NOT calling him Bishop when I've never even spoken about him. I don't know him. The few things I've read and the interactions I've seen him have with others (extremely rude IMO) leads me to not have much interest in referring to him with a respectful title like Bishop. The assertion that if I call one person "bishop" I must refer to everyone that way is pretty poor logic. If I want to refer to a bishop as "Bishop xxx", then I will. If I don't, I won't. I expect you will do the same. But I won't be offended if you want to start referring to Bishop Romney, Bishop Peterson and Bishop Jackwagon. That's up to you. I won't even accuse you of having nefarious motives if you do it. I'm easy like Sunday Morning  

[Exiled]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"These types of interviews?"  I'm not sure what that means.

It must mean to dodge and weave by feigning ignorance to avoid the real issue.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why?  "One is too many," after all.

We have all sorts of safeguards in place for vehicular safety.  Restrictions on who can drive, and how fast, etc.  We have penalties for driving while intoxicated, or driving ngligently or recklessly, etc.  And yet we still have huge numbers of people injured or killed every year by drunk / negligent / reckless drivers.  

"I am sure the percentage of drunk / negligent / reckless drivers is quite small, but one is too many."  How is that materially different from your statement?

Alarmism and moral panic is not a good way to figure out sound policy. 

Yes.  And the Church already has those limits in place.  And some bishops nevertheless contravene those limits, just like we have drivers who drive drunk.  

"These types of interviews?"  I'm not sure what that means.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's sad that you mock the desire to keep every child safe. While I realistically know it's not possible, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be a goal. But you mock it like it's not worthy of effort. I feel sorry for you. Have a nice weekend.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, I found this post by HJW:

What!?  Doesn't he mean Bishop Mitt Romney?

What a brazen sign of disrespect!

-Smac

Meanwhile, the phrase "former bishop" is used all the time on LDS.org.  Is the Church just being "difficult?"  Isn't the Church aware of "once a bishop, always a bishop?"

 Wouldn’t it be president mitt Romney?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's sad that you mock the desire to keep every child safe.

I'm not mocking anything.  I'm making what I think is a reasoned and legitimate point.  Its called argument by analogy.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While I realistically know it's not possible, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be a goal.

I agree.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But you mock it like it's not worthy of effort.

No, I'm not mocking it.  I'm noting that "one is too many" is an impractical and unreasonable and emotion-driven aphorism, particularly as it is being used to rationalize Sam Young's unreasonable and unreasoned demands.

None of us would accept "one is too many" as a justification for excessive policy changes in driving cars, or going to hospitals, or to schools.  Drunk drivers hurt people.  Negligent doctors and nurses commit malpractice.  Teachers abuse students.  And yet we still use cars, and hospitals, and schools.

Statistically speaking, family members are many, many more times likely to abuse a child than a bishop, but would you support Sam Young in calling for the government to abolish families and take all children away from their parents and separating them from siblings, because "even one [victim] is too many?"  

Is that sort of rhetoric reasonable?  Reasoned?  Or is it alarmist and overwrought?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why?  "One is too many," after all.

We have all sorts of safeguards in place for vehicular safety.  Restrictions on who can drive, and how fast, etc.  We have penalties for driving while intoxicated, or driving ngligently or recklessly, etc.  And yet we still have huge numbers of people injured or killed every year by drunk / negligent / reckless drivers.  

"I am sure the percentage of drunk / negligent / reckless drivers is quite small, but one is too many."  How is that materially different from your statement?

Alarmism and moral panic is not a good way to figure out sound policy. 

This is such a garbage argument built on a terrible comparison.  One issue has a reasonable degree of preventability with very little change in "policy", while the other can only be controlled at the periphery without shutting down an entire nation's infrastructure.  I'll let you figure out which one is which. I don't think you have any desire, whatsoever, why people might be alarmed at the continuing commitment to these interviews.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Quote

"These types of interviews?"  I'm not sure what that means.

It must mean to dodge and weave by feigning ignorance to avoid the real issue.

No, I'm not feigning.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[changed]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Why would the Lord tell someone to oppose the Church to fix something rather than just going to His servants He has called and put in leadership for exactly that purpose?

 

Judas was called by God as an apostle to Jesus.  What lesson are we supposed to learn from that?  The original church - the original 12 disciplines - and one of those disciples was the one who betrayed Jesus. 

For me personally, as I have experienced being betrayed by someone in authority, betrayed by a friend... the lesson was "part of your faith-journey will happen in a community, and part of it will happen as an individual..."  I can either call God a monster for "calling and ordaining" people like Judas, or I can see it as an invitation to discover my own personal testimony, and my own personal relationship with God - one without any middlemen.  

Sometimes "Judas" is called as a church leader.

Consider Peter - who denied Christ 3 times... who was right in that exchange, Peter, or those asking if he knew Jesus?  Was it wrong for someone to ask Peter if he knew Jesus?  Who was wrong there?  

Who was wrong when Blacks were denied the priesthood?

Who was wrong when children were abused by bishopric members.  Who was wrong?  

What does God want to teach regular ordinary old members about how much they can rely on the arms of flesh - even if that arm is Peter or another of the 12 disciples?  

Edited August 31, 2018 by changed

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Why?  "One is too many," after all.

We have all sorts of safeguards in place for vehicular safety.  Restrictions on who can drive, and how fast, etc.  We have penalties for driving while intoxicated, or driving ngligently or recklessly, etc.  And yet we still have huge numbers of people injured or killed every year by drunk / negligent / reckless drivers.  

"I am sure the percentage of drunk / negligent / reckless drivers is quite small, but one is too many."  How is that materially different from your statement?

Alarmism and moral panic is not a good way to figure out sound policy. 

This is such a garbage argument built on a terrible comparison. 

"One is too many" is emotional and alarmist.  It's not a sound basis for policy.

And it's just one small part of the reprehensible rhetoric and tactics used by Sam Young and his followers.

Quote

One issue has a reasonable degree of preventability with very little change in "policy", while the other can only be controlled at the periphery without shutting down an entire nation's infrastructure.  I'll let you figure out which one is which. I don't think you have any desire, whatsoever, why people might be alarmed at the continuing commitment to these interviews.

I understand that.  What I don't understand is Sam Young's insistence to dictating to people who disagree with him.  What if parents are okay with the Church's current policy?  

Sam Young doesn't have a monopoly on sincere concern for kids.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 31, 2018 by smac97

[Avatar4321]

3 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Judas was called by God as an apostle to Jesus.  What lesson are we supposed to learn from that?  The original church - the original 12 disciplines - and one of those disciples was the one who betrayed Jesus. 

For me personally, as I have experienced being betrayed by someone in authority, betrayed by a friend... the lesson was "part of your faith-journey will happen in a community, and part of it will happen as an individual..."  I can either call God a monster for "calling and ordaining" people like Judas, or I can see it as an invitation to discover my own personal testimony, and my own personal relationship with God - one without any middlemen.  

Sometimes "Judas" is called as a church leader.

Consider Peter - who denied Christ 3 times... who was right in that exchange, Peter, or those asking if he knew Jesus?  Was it wrong for someone to ask Peter if he knew Jesus?  Who was wrong there?  

Who was wrong when Blacks were denied the priesthood?

Who was wrong when children were abused by bishopric members.  Who was wrong?  

What does God want to teach regular ordinary old members about how much they can rely on the arms of flesh - even if that arm is Peter or another of the 12 disciples?  

We learn that God calls men with flaws because that’s all He has to work with.

and yet Peter and the Twelve received revelation and correction and direction to guide the church because they had the keys to do so. God did not have others rebuke them.

the shepherd enters in by the gate. The thieves go over the fence

[Avatar4321]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's sad that you mock the desire to keep every child safe. While I realistically know it's not possible, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be a goal. But you mock it like it's not worthy of effort. I feel sorry for you. Have a nice weekend.

I’ve seen little evidence that is the actual motivation. Otherwise why ignore how interviews with bishops has exposed abuse? Why seek solutions that defeat the purpose?

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Quote

It's sad that you mock the desire to keep every child safe. While I realistically know it's not possible, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be a goal. But you mock it like it's not worthy of effort. I feel sorry for you. Have a nice weekend.

I’ve seen little evidence that is the actual motivation. Otherwise why ignore how interviews with bishops has exposed abuse? Why seek solutions that defeat the purpose?

My guess: The real objective isn't the welfare of the children and youth of the Church.  That's just a pretext (for Sam Young, anyway - I think a lot of his followers are sincere).  The real objective is for Sam Young to injure and embarrass the Church, to foment alarmism and ill will and discord in the Church, to gain notoriety and praise for himself, and to virtue signal till the cows come home.

As you said, and as I have said many times before, there are all sorts of ways that bishop interviews have helped in the reporting of past abuse, and the detecting and stopping of ongoing abuse.  But Sam Young and his acolytes are in such a frenzy of righteous rage and alarmism, they refuse to acknowledge or address this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 31, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

My guess: The real objective isn't the welfare of the children and youth of the Church.  That's just a pretext.  The real objective is for Sam Young to injure and embarrass the Church, to foment alarmism and ill will and discord in the Church, to gain notoriety and praise for himself, and to virtue signal till the cows come home.

As you said, and as I have said many times before, there are all sorts of ways that bishop interviews have helped in the reporting of past abuse, and the detecting and stopping of ongoing abuse.  But Sam Young and his acolytes are in such a frenzy of righteous rage and alarmism, they refuse to acknowledge or address this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow. You are more cynical than I thought.

[Avatar4321]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow. You are more cynical than I thought.

How many times does the adversary need to inspire the same  actions in people before we see through the pretext?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow. You are more cynical than I thought.

Cynical?  Not really.  Cynicism speaks to "an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest."

I've been reading and following Sam Young's exploits and writings.  How to account for his extremism?  His front-and-center-all-about-me-ism?  His my-way-or-the-highway-ism?  His unreasoned and unreasonable rhetoric?  His disregard and vilification of the Church's reasoning and position?  His self-righteous, either-you-agree-with-me-or-you-are-destroying-the-Church-and-betraying-Christ rhetoric?  

Sam Young's position is neither reasoned nor reasonable.  He is fomenting a moral panic.  Anger.  Rage.  Alarmism.  His behavior is innately suspect and problematic.  It is not rational.  It is counter-productive.  It is alienating. 

So putting aside mental illness (nobody seems to be suggesting that), how to account for all of this?  Well, I account for it with what I've said: The real objective isn't the welfare of the children and youth of the Church.  That's just a pretext (for Sam Young, anyway - I think a lot of his followers are sincere).  The real objective is for Sam Young to injure and embarrass the Church, to foment alarmism and ill will and discord in the Church, to gain notoriety and praise for himself, and to virtue signal till the cows come home.

This, for me, is the best explanation for Sam Young's behavior.  This explanation is not borne of cynicism.  It's based on an evaluation of the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom.

Thanks,

-Smac

[changed]

27 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

We learn that God calls men with flaws because that’s all He has to work with.

 

and when someone you believe to be called of God commands you to.... explude an innocent child becuase their parents are LGBT - I want you to picture that child - some little kid who desperately wants to be included, who needs support, who is trying to find a good group of friends - who would like to be baptised into the church - but you are going to look them in the eye and tell them "no"?  .... 

how about abuse victims - who are sitting there having an anxiety attack at the signt of the church building - would you tell someone who was abused by a high priest they need to go back and be interviewed by a high priest?  tell those kids they need to forgive their abuser and trust their leaders because their sin is worse if they do not forgive?  

I reserve the right to separate the wheat from the tares.  I do not think God wants us to 100% follow imperfect leaders.  I think God wants all of us to have our own personal light, our own personal testimony.  

If it is good and praiseworthy - and most of it is - then great, I will follow it!  

If it is something I have not received my own confirmation on, and is something that is causing harm and pain to innocent children who have been placed under my sphere of protection?  I will follow my own conscience - the light of Christ that is given to all people.

 

[changed]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you said, and as I have said many times before, there are all sorts of ways that bishop interviews have helped in the reporting of past abuse, and the detecting and stopping of ongoing abuse.  But Sam Young and his acolytes are in such a frenzy of righteous rage and alarmism, they refuse to acknowledge or address this.

 

In my case, no one in the church stopped the abuse.  It went on for years and years.  I have met others with similar stories.  Most bishops are not professionally trained to council youth, do not understand how the legal system works.  Bishops are just ordinary men and women who volunteer their time and are not equipped to handle the more serious issues that fall at their doors.  

My bishop "prayed for the miracle of forgiveness" and that is all he did for me and my children.  I was completely on my own through the legal battles and court case.  There was a support group for the abuser, but no support group for victims in my area.  I did not get any assistance of any kind.  Instead, I had my calling taken away... I turned in my temple recommend voluntarily.  Hopefully it is different for others... I have talked to too many others victims that have similar stories though...

[HappyJackWagon]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"One is too many" is emotional and alarmist.  It's not a sound basis for policy.

And it's just one small part of the reprehensible rhetoric and tactics used by Sam Young and his followers.

I understand that.  What I don't understand is Sam Young's insistence to dictating to people who disagree with him.  What if parents are okay with the Church's current policy?  

Sam Young doesn't have a monopoly on sincere concern for kids.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Gosh, has anyone ever said the Sam Young has a monopoly on sincere concern for kids? But I am please to see you acknowledge that he has a sincere concern for children after your last statement...

Quote

My guess: The real objective isn't the welfare of the children and youth of the Church.  That's just a pretext.  The real objective is for Sam Young to injure and embarrass the Church, to foment alarmism and ill will and discord in the Church, to gain notoriety and praise for himself, and to virtue signal till the cows come home.

But then in another post you again stated...

Quote

The real objective isn't the welfare of the children and youth of the Church.  That's just a pretext

You're all over the place. It's a sincere concern for kids. Then it's a pretext. You say it's not cynicism but I'm not sure what else you would call it when you suggest his concern for kids its just a pretext so he can make the church look bad. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but you might occasionally choose to believe a person's stated motives. Otherwise you start sounding like you're wearing a tinfoil hat, looking for Dr. Evil at every turn.

Edited August 31, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

Just now, changed said:

and when someone you believe to be called of God commands you to.... explude an innocent child becuase their parents are LGBT

First, I think you meant "exclude" (instead of "explude").  

Second, what are your thoughts about the delay of baptism of a child from a polygamist family?

Just now, changed said:

- I want you to picture that child - some little kid who desperately wants to be included, who needs support, who is trying to find a good group of friends - who would like to be baptised into the church - but you are going to look them in the eye and tell them "no"?  .... 

Yes.  I would tell the child that, for reasons not within his control, he will need to wait until 18 before he can be baptized.

I would also tell them that there are several situations in which baptism may need to be delayed, none of which are the fault of the child.  A child whose parents do not consent cannot be baptized.  A child of polygamous parents cannot be baptized.  

I would also explain that he is welcome to participate in all Church meetings and activities.  

I would also explain, depending on the age of the child, the reasoning that the general authorities have provided for the policy.  I would also explain that the policy was the result of revelation.

I would also encourage them to do all they can to stay close to God, and to continue to prepare for baptism.

Just now, changed said:

how about abuse victims - who are sitting there having an anxiety attack at the signt of the church building - would you tell someone who was abused by a high priest they need to go back and be interviewed by a high priest? 

No.  Nobody is obligated to participate in church interviews.

Just now, changed said:

tell those kids they need to forgive their abuser and trust their leaders because their sin is worse if they do not forgive?  

I would give them help and time.  I would get them counseling.

At some point yes, the mandate to forgive would need to be addressed.  But it needn't be rushed.  And it can addressed with decorum and respect and patience and love.  

But at the end of the day, the mandate to forgive comes from God.  I'm not sure if you fully appreciate that.

Just now, changed said:

I reserve the right to separate the wheat from the tares.  I do not think God wants us to 100% follow imperfect leaders. 

I agree.

Just now, changed said:

I think God wants all of us to have our own personal light, our own personal testimony.  

I agree.

Just now, changed said:

If it is good and praiseworthy - and most of it is - then great, I will follow it!  

If it is something I have not received my own confirmation on, and is something that is causing harm and pain to innocent children who have been placed under my sphere of protection?  I will follow my own conscience - the light of Christ that is given to all people.

Sounds good.

But here's the thing: The pre-conditions for baptism are not your call.  Nor mine.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Gosh, has anyone ever said the Sam Young has a monopoly on sincere concern for kids? But I am please to see you acknowledge that he has a sincere concern for children after your last statement...

But then in another post you again stated...

You're all over the place. It's a sincere concern for kids. Then it's a pretext.

Allow me to clarify.  I think Sam Young started with a sincere concern.  And I think many of his followers share that concern.

I am not persuaded that Sam Young continues to be motivated by that sincere concern, though.  If he was, he wouldn't be behaving so irrationally.  If he was, he wouldn't be making unreasoned and unreasonable demands.  If he was, he would be willing to address the valid points raised by the Church.  

But he's not doing any of those things.

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You say it's not cynicism but I'm not sure what else you would call it when you suggest his concern for kids its just a pretext so he can make the church look bad.

I explained this previously.

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but you might occasionally choose to believe a person's stated motives. Otherwise you start sounding like you're wearing a tinfoil hat, looking for Dr. Evil at every turn.

I do.  And I did, initially, believe Sam Young had good motives.  As time has gone by, as I have learned more about him, as I have watched his appalling conduct, his alarmism, his vicious treatment of the Church's bishops and leaders, his publicity hound antics, his published statements, etc, my assessment has changed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

As you said, and as I have said many times before, there are all sorts of ways that bishop interviews have helped in the reporting of past abuse, and the detecting and stopping of ongoing abuse.  But Sam Young and his acolytes are in such a frenzy of righteous rage and alarmism, they refuse to acknowledge or address this.

In my case, no one in the church stopped the abuse.  It went on for years and years. 

I am sorry to hear that.  I can't speak to your specific situation.  I don't know who knew what, who failed to act, etc.

The Church's policies, the ones presently in place, are quite good.  They aren't perfect, but they are about the best we can hope to have.

I have personal experience with bishops helping in reporting past abuse and detecting and stopping ongoing abuse.

14 minutes ago, changed said:

I have met others with similar stories.  Most bishops are not professionally trained to council youth,

Which is why the bishops refer youth out to mental health therapists.  This happens all the time.

14 minutes ago, changed said:

do not understand how the legal system works. 

Which is why the Church has a helpline for bishops which is staffed by licensed attorneys.  Bishops use this helpline all the time.

14 minutes ago, changed said:

Bishops are just ordinary men and women who volunteer their time and are not equipped to handle the more serious issues that fall at their doors.  

Actually yes, they are equipped to handle serious issues.  You are simply wrong on this point.

Bishops have access to mental health therapists.  To lawyers.  To food.  To household commodities.  To money to help with interim needs.

I invite you to learn more about this.  You are simply factually incorrect in your assertions here.

14 minutes ago, changed said:

My bishop "prayed for the miracle of forgiveness" and that is all he did for me and my children. 

I am sorry to hear that.  Again, I can't speak to your specific situation.  But you are taking your experience and applying it to everyone else in the Church.  That is simply not correct.  Bishops are providing extensive assitance to those in need all the time.

14 minutes ago, changed said:

I was completely on my own through the legal battles and court case. 

Bishops can't help with legal disputes.  That is not within their purview.

14 minutes ago, changed said:

There was a support group for the abuser, but no support group for victims in my area.  I did not get any assistance of any kind.  Instead, I had my calling taken away... I turned in my temple recommend voluntarily.  Hopefully it is different for others... I have talked to too many others victims that have similar stories though...

My experience has been very different.  

The Church obviously has many ways to improve, but I think you are assuming the worst about it.

Thanks

-Smac