Mormon Leaks document on handling Child Abuse

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

How do you know the missionary dept was not aware of the incident in the mission field.  It says "The missionary recently confessed to kissing and some touching with a 15 year old girl in the mission field".  To whom would this missionary make the confession other than someone in the mission? Do missionaries regularly make confessions to the law firm acting as outside counsel to the church? 

And notice the language.  It doesn't say the missionary department "was reluctant" it says the "missionary department is reluctant to send this Elder home.." 

Phaedrus 

You are right, my interpretation of "recently" might be wrong and not mean after the missionary dept expressed reluctance or that the missionary dept was unaware of the second confession.  I understand the missionary dept to be the SL headquarters, not the mission president and I might be wrong about that.  But if I am wrong, why not just say mission President?

I would assume one of the local church lawyers would have interviewed him, so that is a possible source of the confession,

Edited September 25, 2018 by Calm

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

The missionary faces a felony at home and has abused a 15 year old in the mission field yet they are "reluctant" to send him home.  I'm comfortable to stand by that statement. 

 

Quote

I can reasonably infer there is a lack of concern for the current and future victims. 

 

Pardon me, I did not put these words into  your mouth and was addressing the assumptions behind your "discomfort".
You really ought to be cautious in drawing conclusions from leaked documents for the reasons I enumerated.  I suggest that you not allow these leakers to deceive you with their half truths.

Edited September 26, 2018 by cdowis

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, Abulafia said:

You may be right, you may be wrong, but that doesn't help the public image of the church.

 23 For the time speedily shall come that all ^achurches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become ^bpopular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the ^cdevil are they who need fear, and tremble, and ^dquake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be ^econsumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 23 For the time speedily shall come that all ^achurches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become ^bpopular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the ^cdevil are they who need fear, and tremble, and ^dquake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be ^econsumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet.

So...you're suggesting the church needs to be consumed as stubble? IMO- this could be applied to every church in one way or another. Harsh, man.

Or are you suggesting that the more hated the church becomes is just evidence of its truthfulness? Maybe the church should purge its membership worldwide to get down to a lower number. That 16 million + is starting to look a bit too popular.

[smac97]

On 9/12/2018 at 10:08 AM, phaedrus ut said:

So the missionary department doesn't want to send a Elder home because he faces a felony for unlawful sexual acts

I'm not sure about that (the "because..." part).

On 9/12/2018 at 10:08 AM, phaedrus ut said:

and the Stake President would have a duty to report because of the laws of that state. 

Yes.

On 9/12/2018 at 10:08 AM, phaedrus ut said:

Yet the missionary has also been practicing the same behavior in the mission field.

Apparently some serious misconduct, yes.

On 9/12/2018 at 10:08 AM, phaedrus ut said:

Again this Elder is touching 15 year old girls in the mission field but the "missionary department" of the church is reluctant to send him home because he faces felony charges

Again, I'm not sure about that (the "because..." part).

On 9/12/2018 at 10:08 AM, phaedrus ut said:

because of his sexual behavior with a different 15 year old girl.  I can reasonably infer there is a lack of concern for the current and future victims. 

I'm not sure you can.  Way too little information here.  

A person can let their emotions override them in the moment, such that the priority of concern gets skewed.  But concern for the missionary is not logically equivalent to "a lack of concern for the current and future victims."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

19 hours ago, cdowis said:

 

Pardon me, I did not put these words into  your mouth and was addressing the assumptions behind your "discomfort".
You really ought to be cautious in drawing conclusions from leaked documents for the reasons I enumerated.  I suggest that you not allow these leakers to deceive you with their half truths.

And you know these are deceptive "half-truths" how, exactly?

[cdowis]

19 hours ago, ttribe said:

And you know these are deceptive "half-truths" how, exactly?

I saw the leaked videos/documents and their comments/misinterpretation on the content with my own eyes and heard with my own ears -- homophobia, war mongers to advance the church. (huge) six figure income, etc

Edited September 27, 2018 by cdowis

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I saw the leaked videos/documents and their comments/misinterpretation on the content with my own eyes and heard with my own ears -- homophobia, war mongers to advance the church. (huge) six figure income, etc

Okay.  That's an....interesting response.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

Okay.  That's an....interesting response.

I am careful to avoid baseless assertions.  I have a reputation to protect.

[rodheadlee]

On 9/26/2018 at 7:09 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

So...you're suggesting the church needs to be consumed as stubble? IMO- this could be applied to every church in one way or another. Harsh, man.

Or are you suggesting that the more hated the church becomes is just evidence of its truthfulness? Maybe the church should purge its membership worldwide to get down to a lower number. That 16 million + is starting to look a bit too popular.

 No, I'm saying it's no surprise we're not popular.  It's funny how you twist all those prophecies around as if I wrote them. They are simply a glimpse of the future  from 2600 years ago.

[phaedrus ut]

On 9/25/2018 at 6:50 PM, cdowis said:

Pardon me, I did not put these words into  your mouth and was addressing the assumptions behind your "discomfort".
You really ought to be cautious in drawing conclusions from leaked documents for the reasons I enumerated.  I suggest that you not allow these leakers to deceive you with their half truths.

Actually you did.  If you notice in your post you used quotation marks.  

On 9/24/2018 at 7:54 PM, cdowis said:

So your assertion that the church "does not care  about the victim" is misplaced.  We do not know the details, for example, why the missionary dept came to its recommendation, and your  "guilty until proven innocent" is the default position  against the church by its enemies.  It appears to me that you are among them.

If you didn't use the quotation marks you could be paraphrasing me but by including quotation marks you are suggesting that's what I wrote and you are quoting me.  So yes you did try to put words in my mouth, literally. 

Phaedrus

Edited September 28, 2018 by phaedrus ut

[california boy]

19 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 No, I'm saying it's no surprise we're not popular.  It's funny how you twist all those prophecies around as if I wrote them. They are simply a glimpse of the future  from 2600 years ago.

Too bad the things that the church is most known for is polygamy, discriminating against blacks and working to take away the civil rights of gay couples.  All part of the plan I guess.   The only current policy that is unpopular with a lot of people is how the church treats gay families and their children.  Maybe the church should reinstate polygamy and ban blacks from the priesthood again.  The church could get the dislike meter way up just by reinstituting some of its more famous teachings.

[cdowis]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Too bad the things that the church is most known for is polygamy, discriminating against blacks and working to take away the civil rights of gay couples.  All part of the plan I guess.   The only current policy that is unpopular with a lot of people is how the church treats gay families and their children.  Maybe the church should reinstate polygamy and ban blacks from the priesthood again.  The church could get the dislike meter way up just by reinstituting some of its more famous teachings.

Actually we could go  back to the Bible days --  in the Old Testament where only a small group of individuals could hold the priesthood, forbid marriage to anyone outside our religion on the pain of death, and commit genocide to take over their property. 

In the NT, only the Jews were were allowed to be taught the Gospel [until this ban was revoked by revelation] and give all our property to the church (all things held in common).

But thank the Lord that He has given us living prophets, and blessed us with a multitude of enemies from Sodom and Gomorrah,  to test and prove ourselves.

Hallelujah!

Edited September 29, 2018 by cdowis

[Abulafia]

44 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Actually we could go  back to the Bible days --  in the Old Testament where only a small group of individuals could hold the priesthood, forbid marriage to anyone outside our religion on the pain of death, and commit genocide to take over their property. 

In the NT, only the Jews were were allowed to be taught the Gospel [until this ban was revoked by revelation] and give all our property to the church (all things held in common).

But thank the Lord that He has given us living prophets, and blessed us with a multitude of enemies from Sodom and Gomorrah,  to test and prove ourselves.

Hallelujah!

That's just historically wrong. There is no comparison between the Jewish Priesthood and how PH functions in Mormonism today.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

Actually we could go  back to the Bible days --  in the Old Testament where only a small group of individuals could hold the priesthood, forbid marriage to anyone outside our religion on the pain of death, and commit genocide to take over their property. 

In the NT, only the Jews were were allowed to be taught the Gospel [until this ban was revoked by revelation] and give all our property to the church (all things held in common).

But thank the Lord that He has given us living prophets, and blessed us with a multitude of enemies from Sodom and Gomorrah,  to test and prove ourselves.

Hallelujah!

Why stop there? When you start to embrace Old Testament beliefs, there is a whole lot that might not go over too well in todays world.  Should we bring back killing entire race of people including women and children? How about old fashion stoning.  Why just bring polygamy back when there is so much more that can be embraced? 

Religion is it's own worse enemy.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Why stop there? When you start to embrace Old Testament beliefs, there is a whole lot that might not go over too well in todays world.  Should we bring back killing entire race of people including women and children? How about old fashion stoning.  Why just bring polygamy back when there is so much more that can be embraced? 

Religion is it's own worse enemy.  

Religion is quite scary in the Bible, and even in the now and not so distant past. When I see all of the different sects that were started by one person who said they spoke for God and then what people did when they said it was revelation and how it altered their lives and many others. Sadly, the LDS church is on that list, and very sad about that. I still cling to it, because they are my tribe, or people, I relate to. But sometimes it wouldn't hurt to branch out and see what life is on the outside, truly on the outside. 

Also, a side note, but significant note. My husband recently visited my mother-in-law, and she started to cry, because apparently her gay grandson had driven her from his parents after a family dinner. She cried when she told my husband that she hadn't realized how much her grandson had been put through because of the church. And the church at one time believing it was a choice and not born that way. A lightbulb went on and she is feeling so bad for him. She is close to ninety so a big wake up call for her generation.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Tacenda

[california boy]

It is always sad to hear how someone in the church that is gay has been treated.  For a long time, good members of the church just didn't know how to handle someone who is gay.  They thought that any kind of reaching out to them meant some kind of endorsement of homosexuality.  Fortunately, the church message has been a bit more kind than it used to be.  

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Religion is quite scary in the Bible, and even in the now and not so distant past. When I see all of the different sects that were started by one person who said they spoke for God and then what people did when they said it was revelation and how it altered their lives and many others. Sadly, the LDS church is on that list, and very sad about that. I still cling to it, because they are my tribe, or people, I relate to. But sometimes it wouldn't hurt to branch out and see what life is on the outside, truly on the outside. 

Also, a side note, but significant note. My husband recently visited my mother-in-law, and she started to cry, because apparently her gay grandson had driven her from his parents after a family dinner. She cried when she told my husband that she hadn't realized how much her grandson had been put through because of the church. And the church at one time believing it was a choice and not born that way. A lightbulb went on and she is feeling so bad for him. She is close to ninety so a big wake up call for her generation.

🙁

[cdowis]

9 hours ago, Abulafia said:

That's just historically wrong. There is no comparison between the Jewish Priesthood and how PH functions in Mormonism today.

God Himself decided who would receive this priesthood, both perform ordinances prescribed by God, both are ordained under the direction (keys) of the presiding prophet Heb 5:4) I agree that the Levitical priesthood was in preparation of the higher priesthood which constituted the difference in the nature of the ordinances performed  -- similar to high school preparing for college.

Just curious, as one professing  expertise in this area, have you actually read the entire OT?

Edited September 29, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Religion is it's own worse enemy.  

OK, you have made it clear your attitude about religion, and so have I regarding Sodom and Gomorrah.   We understand each other, and can agree to disagree.

So here we are with mutual respect.  Amazing!

[Abulafia]

9 hours ago, cdowis said:

God Himself decided who would receive this priesthood, both perform ordinances prescribed by God, both are ordained under the direction (keys) of the presiding prophet Heb 5:4) I agree that the Levitical priesthood was in preparation of the higher priesthood which constituted the difference in the nature of the ordinances performed  -- similar to high school preparing for college.

Just curious, as one professing  expertise in this area, have you actually read the entire OT?

Cdowis, I wrote something quite specific. Here's what I wrote..

"There is no comparison between the Jewish Priesthood and how PH functions in Mormonism today."

Imho, the development of priesthood in Judaism is pretty hard to get to. You get Melchizedek, a priest of the most high, an elusive character to whom Abraham offers sacrifice. You get a Priest of On there in Exodus, and also Moses father in law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, who advises Moses and who's function appeared to include the offering of sacrifice. [Exodus 18]

"And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and sacrifices to God; and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of God."

 

Jethro advises Moses to pick out judges. No priesthood needed.  [Exodus 18].

"You should also look for able men among all the people, men who fear God, are trustworthy, and hate dishonest gain; set such men over them as officers over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. Let them sit as judges for the people at all times; let them bring every important case to you, but decide every minor case themselves"

Aaron's lineage is chosen to perform priestly functions around the tabernacle. Offerings and Sacrifice.That's their job and so they can't own land and they are, in effect, a paid ministry.  

Priestly function did not include judging, leading, ruling and prophecy. And judges, leaders, rulers and prophets could be women. Priesthood was never based on the colour of one's skin. There could be black priests. They just had to have the right mum and dad.  

That's not how priesthood functions in Mormonism today. It's as simple as that. Priesthood duties now encompass prophets, judges, leadership, and the institutional president. 

How priesthood functions in Mormonism today is also not how priesthood functioned in the earliest Christian communities. Jesus was not a priest. In Matthew [8] he tells a person he has healed to go to the priest and make an offering.

"Then Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”"

Except possibly for Levi, none of the original 5 and then 12 core itinerant followers were priests. Paul wasn't a priest. The nearest Paul gets (and he is the earliest writer historically speaking) is in Romans [15:16]

"because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable.

Priesthood and temple offerings were closely linked at the time even as metaphor.

Hope that explains my position well enough.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2018 by Abulafia

[cdowis]

12 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Hope that explains my position well enough.

Thank you for sharing your interpretations of scripture and personal opinions on the history and functions of the priesthood.

I have no interest instructing you, except for one example  ===>>>>
The ban on the priesthood was not based on "skin colour" but lineage.  An individual could have black skin and hold the priesthood (Pacific Islands), or  have white skin but would not qualify to hold it (Brazil)

https://www.google.com/search?q=black+skin+pacific+island&safe=active&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS768US769&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPpPbFzePdAhUM7FMKHRb0Cm4QsAR6BAgDEAE&biw=1360&bih=626

Edited September 30, 2018 by cdowis

[MiserereNobis]

24 minutes ago, cdowis said:

have white skin but would not qualify to hold it.

CFR for a white skinned male who is worthy to hold the priesthood but was denied it because of lineage.  I am not being rude; I have never heard this before and would like an example.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

CFR for a white skinned male who is worthy to hold the priesthood but was denied it because of lineage.  I am not being rude; I have never heard this before and would like an example.

Consequently missionaries could not work in any area without inadvertently contacting blacks or their descendants. This was generally not a problem with contacts who had obvious African physical traits, but many investigators who looked European had distant black ancestors. Second, American missionaries ran into problems when their identification of blacks differed from that of Brazilian members. Faithful Church members respecting the policy on priesthood restrictions would interest family and friends in the Church only to discover that the missionaries believed the potential investigators had African ancestry. The Church established strict guidelines in an effort to limit, as much as possible, the inevitable conflict. By the 1960s an uneasy but workable system was in place. In general, priesthood leaders considered physical appearance first and then family and genealogical records.
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V23N01_41.pdf

The construction of the San Paulo Temple brought this matter to a head ==>>

 ...temple eligibility in Brazil was problematic due to the considerable miscegenation between Amerindians, Europeans, and Africans since 1500, and high uncertainty in tracing ancestral roots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Revelation_on_Priesthood

 

 

Edited September 30, 2018 by cdowis

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

Consequently missionaries could not work in any area without inadvertently contacting blacks or their descendants. This was generally not a problem with contacts who had obvious African physical traits, but many investigators who looked European had distant black ancestors. Second, American missionaries ran into problems when their identification of blacks differed from that of Brazilian members. Faithful Church members respecting the policy on priesthood restrictions would interest family and friends in the Church only to discover that the missionaries believed the potential investigators had African ancestry. The Church established strict guidelines in an effort to limit, as much as possible, the inevitable conflict. By the 1960s an uneasy but workable system was in place. In general, priesthood leaders considered physical appearance first and then family and genealogical records.
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V23N01_41.pdf

The construction of the San Paulo Temple brought this matter to a head ==>>

 ...temple eligibility in Brazil was problematic due to the considerable miscegenation between Amerindians, Europeans, and Africans since 1500, and high uncertainty in tracing ancestral roots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Revelation_on_Priesthood

 

 

 This doesn’t really answer my CFR. Please point me to a  specific example of a white skinned worthy male being denied the priesthood because of lineage. 

 Also, was the denial of the priesthood based on African lineage limited to sub Sahara Africa, or were Mediterranean Africans included in the ban as well?