Mormon Leaks document on handling Child Abuse

[smac97]

.

Edited September 13, 2018 by smac97

[lostindc]

I believe a fair question to ask, if a Church isn’t transparent regarding handling abuse issues, then should this Church request male Church leaders to pull youth aside and ask questions regarding sex, dress, and masturbation?  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Like I said earlier, on this board and I suppose throughout the church, we can't even agree on whether 1) there should be transparency to keep membership informed about the dealings of the institution and 2) leaders are in any way accountable to the members for the policies and procedures they put in place.

Controls and accountability seem to only work in one direction in the church, from the top down. But don't think for a second that the church doesn't utilize secular concepts and controls in its operations. For example, can you imagine the church not placing, maintaining, and auditing dual control measures when it comes to church finances? Those are secular best practices and are very wise. From the top down they can see and know and audit everything that is done down the chain but it isn't possible for anyone down the chain to see if those up the chain are also following the rules. There is no accountability at the top of the structure. IMO- accountability should be shared from top to bottom. No one is above accountability. I honestly feel that accountability and transparency makes our government better, every organization I've ever been a part of better, and I think those same levels of accountability and transparency would make the church better. I understand that we disagree on this. It seems to be a wide philosophical chasm.

Of course best practices are used for the particular purposes they were designed for. Common consent is one of them, designed for participation in the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The Church uses various secular “best practices” in her temporal pursuits, and the more spiritual practice of common consent for those pursuits relating to the laws, covenants, articles, etc. of priesthood order and administration (see the footnote “a” in D&C 33:14). Common consent is practiced both membership-wide and restricted to the particular council making decisions, including temporal ones (D&C 104). In this latter instance, the temporal and spiritual merge, as well they should, but under spiritual best practices, as well should be expected considering the context.

For this reason, I don’t think fundamental disagreement is so much philosophical or even ideological, but how psychically comfortable one is with bridging temporal and spiritual pursuits (both personal and collective). That is what drives one’s orientation philosophically and ideologically. The subject document hardly allows conclusions to be drawn on how the Church is doing with any kind of best practice.

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I believe a fair question to ask, if a Church isn’t transparent regarding handling abuse issues, then should this Church request male Church leaders to pull youth aside and ask questions regarding sex, dress, and masturbation?  

Under the best practice of common consent, transparency is measured by much prayer and faith, as is the propriety of interview practices vis-a-vis the laws, covenants and articles of the Church. Common consent is voluntary, naturally with a collective expectation that one practices good will in his participation and follow-through.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course best practices are used for the particular purposes they were designed for. Common consent is one of them, designed for participation in the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The Church uses various secular “best practices” in her temporal pursuits, and the more spiritual practice of common consent for those pursuits relating to the laws, covenants, articles, etc. of priesthood order and administration (see the footnote “a” in D&C 33:14). Common consent is practiced both membership-wide and restricted to the particular council making decisions, including temporal ones (D&C 104). In this latter instance, the temporal and spiritual merge, as well they should, but under spiritual best practices, as well should be expected considering the context.

For this reason, I don’t think fundamental disagreement is so much philosophical or even ideological, but how psychically comfortable one is with bridging temporal and spiritual pursuits (both personal and collective). That is what drives one’s orientation philosophically and ideologically. The subject document hardly allows conclusions to be drawn on how the Church is doing with any kind of best practice.

I don't think I'm understanding you. I agree that common consent would be a best practice IF it were practiced. The only common consent in perfunctory acceptance of individuals who hold callings and then by extension everything they do. IMO for there to be true common consent there must be knowledge and there is no knowledge without information. If the church wanted to practice common consent it would do a much better job at informing its members about how it operates, what it plans to do, and even who it is calling to positions (before the vote is asked for).

I don't understand your comment about psychically being comfortable with bridging the gap of spiritual and temporal.

I agree that the document doesn't show nearly enough information. It is just one leaked document. If we, as a church, want to understand how the institutional church and its leaders respond to abuse, what policies are in place and how they are followed, the church would need to provide some information. But the church doesn't provide info. I think the church and its highest leaders follow the philosophy that members don't need to know, and shouldn't know what they are doing. I don't think they feel accountable to the membership. If they did, they would take a much different approach to transparency and common consent.

[lostindc]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Under the best practice of common consent, transparency is measured by much prayer and faith, as is the propriety of interview practices vis-a-vis the laws, covenants and articles of the Church. Common consent is voluntary, naturally with a collective expectation that one practices good will in his participation and follow-through.

Do you think that the average minor wants to discuss sexual topics with an adult male in what is often a one-on-one situation?  Do you think maybe that's not common consent and perhaps it's the will of the parent and Church over the child?  

 

[Jeanne]

Just a question.  As I understand it, many TBMs here do not put much stock in the leaks.  I can understand your POV to a point.  But what I am asking is that even if the documents are stolen..or given to someone...but they are real and somewhat hurtful, do you not want to at least know more???  Can you comprehend any reason for not wanting to know more??  It is YOUR church your children...and the salvation of those you care about.  Where do you stand?  Please be honest. 

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just a question.  As I understand it, many TBMs here do not put much stock in the leaks. 

I don't really appreciate Mr. McKnight encouraging employees of the Church to steal materials from the Church and send these stolen materials to him so he can publish them to the world.

And, FWIW, I think some members of the Church do not like denigrating references like "TBM" ("Totally Brainwashed Mormon").

Quote

I can understand your POV to a point.  But what I am asking is that even if the documents are stolen..or given to someone...but they are real and somewhat hurtful, do you not want to at least know more??? 

I don't think we can just slide on past the "even if the documents are stolen" bit.  What if Mr. McKnight targeted you?  What if he encouraged your family and friends to peruse through your personal items, pilfer your personal and private information, and secretly send it to him for publication to the world?

Idle curiosity is not really a healthy thing.  The more relevant question, I think, is does the general membership of the Church have a "right" or "need" to know the particulars of, say, sexual misconduct by a missionary?  Generally speaking, I think the answer is "no."

Quote

Can you comprehend any reason for not wanting to know more?? 

Yes, I can think of reasons.  But are these reasons justified and valid?  

How much of the curiosity about these stolen documents is "idle?"  Voyeuristic?  Prurient?  Borne of a desire to foment gossip and backbiting and faultfinding?

I don't detect a lick of good will in Ryan McKnight's "MormonLeaks" project.  Just malice.  And delight in being able to get away with theft (while leaving the people whom he encourages to steal for him to twist in the wind).

Quote

It is YOUR church your children...and the salvation of those you care about. 

And the general membership knowing about the sins of random others is relevant to our children and their salvation . . . how?

Also, would you consider resisting the temptation of trying to justify/rationalize Mr. McKnight's thievery by claiming the ends justify the means?  And worse, to present to us some sort of vague concern for the salvation of our children as justification for such theft?  It really does not come across well.  At all.

Quote

Where do you stand?  Please be honest. 

Here goes: Broadly speaking, I find it repellant and disgusting that we are apparently supposed to ignore Mr. McKnight's thievery and embrace a the-ends-justify-the-means form of morality, all for apparently no legitimate purpose, and instead to simply indulge in online gossip and voyeurism about the sins of other people with whom we have no relationship, and about whose transgressions we have no stewardship, nor a need nor right to know.

🤨

-Smac

Edited September 13, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And, FWIW, I think some members of the Church do not like denigrating references like "TBM" ("Totally Brainwashed Mormon").

That's not what is meant by TBM. "True Blue Mormons," a reference to Joseph F. Smith's "Mormon, true blue, through and through" comment when accosted by hostile mobbers. 

I use TBM to describe "with the program" Mormons, and critics use it to also describe "with the program" Mormons. It doesn't have a derogatory connotation to me. 

[lostindc]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't really appreciate Mr. McKnight encouraging employees of the Church to steal materials from the Church and send these stolen materials to him so he can publish them to the world.

And, FWIW, I think some members of the Church do not like denigrating references like "TBM" ("Totally Brainwashed Mormon").

I don't think we can just slide on past the "even if the documents are stolen" bit.  What if Mr. McKnight targeted you?  What if he encouraged your family and friends to peruse through your personal items, pilfer your personal and private information, and secretly send it to him for publication to the world?

Idle curiosity is not really a healthy thing.  The more relevant question, I think, is does the general membership of the Church have a "right" or "need" to know the particulars of, say, sexual misconduct by a missionary?  Generally speaking, I think the answer is "no."

Yes, I can think of reasons.  But are these reasons justified and valid?  

How much of the curiosity about these stolen documents is "idle?"  Voyeuristic?  Prurient?  Borne of a desire to foment gossip and backbiting and faultfinding?

I don't detect a lick of good will in Ryan McKnight's "MormonLeaks" project.  Just malice.  And delight in being able to get away with theft (while leaving the people whom he encourages to steal for him to twist in the wind).

And the general membership knowing about the sins of random others is relevant to our children and their salvation . . . how?

Also, would you consider resisting the temptation of trying to justify/rationalize Mr. McKnight's thievery by claiming the ends justify the means?  And worse, to present to us some sort of vague concern for the salvation of our children as justification for such theft?  It really does not come across well.  At all.

Here goes: Broadly speaking, I find it repellant and disgusting that we are apparently supposed to ignore Mr. McKnight's thievery and embrace a the-ends-justify-the-means form of morality, all for apparently no legitimate purpose, and instead to simply indulge in online gossip and voyeurism about the sins of other people with whom we have no relationship, and about whose transgressions we have no stewardship, nor a need nor right to know.

🤨

-Smac

So if the method of obtaining information is bad, but the information is very vital then you rather not know the information?

[smac97]

Just now, rongo said:

Quote

And, FWIW, I think some members of the Church do not like denigrating references like "TBM" ("Totally Brainwashed Mormon").

That's not what is meant by TBM. "True Blue Mormons," a reference to Joseph F. Smith's "Mormon, true blue, through and through" comment when accosted by hostile mobbers. 

I use TBM to describe "with the program" Mormons, and critics use it to also describe "with the program" Mormons. It doesn't have a derogatory connotation to me. 

Fair enough.  I withdraw the point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, lostindc said:

So if the method of obtaining information is bad, but the information is very vital then you rather not know the information?

First, "the method of obtaining information" involves Mr. McKnight encouraging employees of the Church to betray the trust of their employer by stealing the Church's information and sending it to him so he can publish it to the world.  This bears emphasis and repetition.

Second, "the method of obtaining information" almost certainly involves the encouragement of criminal activity.  Mr. McKnight has bragged on this very board how he has insulated himself from potential legal ramifications of his behavior, while also admitting that his "sources" may be breaking the law when they do what he has encouraged them to do.  This bears emphasis and repetition.

Third, Mr. McKnight is not a whistleblower.  Even by his own reckoning, he "[doesn't] ever expect to uncover institutionally supported illegal activity."  This makes his behavior all the more dishonorable and wrong.  This bears emphasis and repetition.

Fourth, I do not detect a lick of good will or good faith in Mr. McKnight's "MormonLeaks" project.  He is out to embarrass the Church.  To foment ill will against the Church.  To make the Church look bad.

Finally, I am not persuaded that "the information [in the documents Mr. McKnight has encouraged employees of the Church to steal and send to him] is very vital."  Far from it, actually.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 13, 2018 by smac97

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fair enough.  I withdraw the point.

Thanks,

-Smac

I didn't know what it meant either.  But it never seems to be used in a way that is entirely complimentary.

[clarkgoble]

Could someone clarify for me what they mean by transparency in these cases? What exactly are you looking for? I confess I just don't see coverup in any of these cases based upon the information we have. It almost sounds like people are saying all these spreadsheets should be public, but surely people can see how that affects the victim too.

[lostindc]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

First, "the method of obtaining information" involves Mr. McKnight encouraging employees of the Church to betray the trust of their employer (and likely break the law) by stealing the Church's information and sending it to him so he can publish it to the world.  This bears emphasis and repetition.

Second, "the method of obtaining information" almost certainly involves the encouragement of criminal activity.  Mr. McKnight has bragged on this very board how he has insulated himself from potential legal ramifications of his behavior, while also admitting that his "sources" may be breaking the law when they do what he has encouraged them to do.  This bears emphasis and repetition.

Third, Mr. McKnight is not a "whistleblower."  Even by his own reckoning, he "[doesn't] ever expect to uncover institutionally supported illegal activity."  This bears emphasis and repetition.

Fourth, I do not detect a lick of good will or good faith in Mr. McKnight's "MormonLeaks" project.  He is out to embarrass the Church.  To foment ill will against the Church.  To make the Church look bad.

Finally, I am not persuaded that "the information [in the documents Mr. McKnight has encouraged employees of the Church to steal and send to him] is very vital."  Far from it, actually.  

Thanks,

-Smac

What information is Ryan McKnight sharing that the Church needs to keep hidden from it's members?  

Likewise, you believe Church employees are breaking the trust of the employer, whereas others believe the Church has broken the trust of members and outsiders and thus leaking information is a must.  Leaking documents has provided a level of accountability that the Church hasn't implemented in the past.

It would be really cool to see if Jesus would operate his Church in the same way we do in modern times.  Could you imagine Jesus excommunicating members speaking out against one-on-one worthiness interviews, or Jesus getting upset because someone leaked an internal document detailing how his Church is handling a difficult situation?

[lostindc]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Could someone clarify for me what they mean by transparency in these cases? What exactly are you looking for? I confess I just don't see coverup in any of these cases based upon the information we have. It almost sounds like people are saying all these spreadsheets should be public, but surely people can see how that affects the victim too.

I believe the goal of transparency is to get the Church to step back and assess the way they handle these difficult issues and develop and implement proper protocol.  Until that happens, worthiness interviews must stop, because if we can save one soul from the harmful impacts of these interviews, especially with the untrained and sometimes even malicious leaders, then how great is that cause?  Saving even just one person does really matter in the sight of the divine. 

D&C 18:15, And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I believe the goal of transparency is to get the Church to step back and assess the way they handle these difficult issues and develop and implement proper protocol.  Until that happens, worthiness interviews must stop, because if we can save one soul from the harmful impacts of these interviews, especially with the untrained and sometimes even malicious leaders, then how great is that cause?  Saving even just one person does really matter in the sight of the divine. 

 

I'm confused. So the Mormon Leaks is about ending teenage interviews not about abuse at all? (I confess I have zero idea what "proper protocol" means) It's not really about transparency at all? Or is that just your goal. Genuinely confused as I don't tend to read these threads often.

Edited September 13, 2018 by clarkgoble

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Could someone clarify for me what they mean by transparency in these cases? What exactly are you looking for? I confess I just don't see coverup in any of these cases based upon the information we have. It almost sounds like people are saying all these spreadsheets should be public, but surely people can see how that affects the victim too.

The problem is we don't have any information. For example, there are accusations against the church that they knew Bishop was a predator, and therefore shouldn't have been placed into a position of authority over vulnerable women. What did the church know, and when? What do they do when they are given information about abuse? Do they dissuade victims from going to law enforcement? Do they protect the abuser by keeping them in positions of authority? etc. There are a million questions that we don't have answers to. More than anything, I want to know what the church's policies are for how they treat these situations, along with what they actually did in these situations.

How many accusations of abuse are leveled against church leaders on an annual basis? How much money is spent on settlements? What is the purpose of the non-disclosure agreements they make victims sign? Is the church's primary goal to protect the reputation of the church or is it to protect the victim and help them recover? We don't know what the church does?

The church should be transparent with its policies, procedures, and historical data on how it has lived up to those policies and procedures (like an audit). I don't think anyone is calling for transparency about the victims, but if a perpetrator is a danger to others, then what is the church doing to protect others? IMO these are all fair questions the church should answer.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm confused. So the Mormon Leaks is about ending teenage interviews not about abuse at all? (I confess I have zero idea what "proper protocol" means) It's not really about transparency at all? Or is that just your goal. Genuinely confused as I don't tend to read these threads often.

You should go back and read the thread. This has been covered exhaustively.

For example, if the church is aware of perpetrators, or policies that have created unsafe conditions in the church (such as one-on one interviews with minors), yet does nothing to make things safer, then the church bears some responsibility. But we can't know how big the problem is, if we don't know what has been done, or is being done on a regular basis. There are obviously a number of cases of abuse involving missionaries and church leaders, yet we know nothing about how those are handled or what is being done to protect the innocent. So transparency on this issue can be linked to the example of bishops interviews.

Seriously, you should probably read the thread

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, lostindc said:

What information is Ryan McKnight sharing that the Church needs to keep hidden from it's members?  

What is your IRL name?  What is your social security number?  What is your username/password for your bank account login?  What is the combination to the safe in your basement?  Where do you live?

Do you feel comfortable publicly answering these questions, given that I have neither a right nor a need to know any of this?

Gotta love the loaded question, BTW.  

5 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Likewise, you believe Church employees are breaking the trust of the employer,

It's not a matter of belief.  It's a statement of fact.

5 minutes ago, lostindc said:

whereas others believe the Church has broken the trust of members and outsiders and thus leaking information is a must.  

The ends justify the means.  Gotta love it.

You would be screaming bloody murder if Mr. McKnight used that logic as justification to encourage your friends and family steal your personal and sensitive information and publish it against your will.  

5 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Leaking documents has provided a level of accountability that the Church hasn't implemented in the past.

Not really.

And accountability by theft and coercion is not admirable or helpful.

5 minutes ago, lostindc said:

It would be really cool to see if Jesus would operate his Church in the same way we do in modern times.  

You mean the same Jesus who said this in Matthew 13?

Quote

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

And Mark 9:

Quote

And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

And Mark 8:

Quote

27 ¶ And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Cæsarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
28 And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

And Mark 7:

Quote

31 ¶ And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.
32 And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him.
33 And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue;
34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
35 And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.
36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;
37 And were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.

And Luke 5:

Quote

12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

And Matthew 16:

Quote

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

And Luke 8:

Quote

49 ¶ While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue’s house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master.
50 But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.
51 And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden.
52 And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.
53 And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.
54 And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.
55 And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.
56 And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.

See also Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7:

Quote

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven ... a time to keep silence, and a time to speak. 

I am curious what you make of Paul's statement in Acts 1:

Quote

1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

What information was Paul referencing here that Jesus needed to keep hidden from His followers?  After all, by your reckoning, anything not published to the world is being "hidden."  And "hiding" things is - again by your apparent reckoning - necessarily a bad and evil thing.

And yet there were many instances where Jesus Christ kept silence, and commanded His servants to keep silent.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lostindc]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm confused. So the Mormon Leaks is about ending teenage interviews not about abuse at all? (I confess I have zero idea what "proper protocol" means) It's not really about transparency at all? Or is that just your goal. Genuinely confused as I don't tend to read these threads often.

You're not confused Clark, you're uneasy.  I was in a similar spot years ago.  We know that Mormon Leaks isn't exclusive to "teenage interviews."  

In regards to "teenage interviews" if it's your child in the interview, what do you think proper protocol should be?  If we can't establish protocol because viewpoints are very different then maybe we need to stop the interviews until a consensus is made regarding how to keep our kids safe?  Would you want worthiness interviews to stop if it puts even just one child in a really bad spot with a creepy leader?  It happens.  Is that one person's welfare important enough for the interviews to stop?  You tell me Clark, what's the threshold for you?  

Your statement "It's not really about transparency at all" won't fly.  To limit Mormon Leaks to one goal is silly, because Mormon leaks has many different individuals uploading texts for various reasons/goals, but it is fair to say that transparency is one of the outcomes of Mormon leaks thus far.  

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Just a question.  As I understand it, many TBMs here do not put much stock in the leaks.  I can understand your POV to a point.  But what I am asking is that even if the documents are stolen..or given to someone...but they are real and somewhat hurtful, do you not want to at least know more???  Can you comprehend any reason for not wanting to know more??  It is YOUR church your children...and the salvation of those you care about.  Where do you stand?  Please be honest. 

Hi Jeanne, 

I finally had a moment to read the document. I haven't read the entire thread and other's concerns. But I am TBM and I'm not all that concerned with this leak. It doesn't disturb me. My biggest concern is with the one with the 8 year old and little action being taken. Of course, the laws in that area may drastically differ (it's stated as "foreign country) as is the local protocol. I see a snapshot in the middle of a conversation to monitor and address concerns. Knowing the general procedure would be nice, but I would be lying if I stated I would absolutely need this is or be clamoring to have it....I'd likely read it out of curiosity once and call it good. 

I can definitely comprehend a reason to not know more...it's called confidentiality. Which is big in several of the fields that such a case may be handled with. INcluding lawyers, therapist, and ecclesiastical leaders. Its that confidentiality that often allows these entities to work with efficiency. It doesn't mean that I think that there aren't cost. It's not a perfect solution to everything. But its still needed and less likely to cause issues than complete openness about every single procedure. 

It is my church and one day my children and the salvation to those I care about. Abuse and Assaults also plays a major part in my therapy sessions. Struggles with church and at times bishops or leaders can play a part in this. Honestly from where I stand, some of this feels like barking up the wrong tree. Assaults, rapes, etc are common in my office. They have themes and trends that sometimes feel like they're playing out like a script. We're a sick society at large. But I haven't seen something extremely intrinsic that entail some form of special enabling of abuse in the church. Not recently at least. With the catholic diocese there was a clear pattern of behaviors and procedures that enabled predators to stay hidden in the flock for years. I simply haven't seen that hierarchical trend. 

What I have seen is at times individual, based on the predominant culture of the local region, and I would likely face similar battles if my children were abused from other non-church outlets. This can include pushing to "forgive" and not press charges. For bishops to give a slap of the wrist in discipline or to treat rape or assaults in the same way one might treat any other form of sexual misbehavior (on the perps side....luckily I've heard very very little of this for victims in the area I reside). It can include not seeking understanding about rapes and sexual assault in general (again, something that's prevalent in most societies period) and for individual cases as a whole. Sometimes several of these are tied to having only one side of the story (the perps) and not having the other because they're not apart of that ward.

I don't know how opening the files for public use would actually help these concerns and make a significant difference in the lives of the victims and be a better balance of justice and mercy. Juts as I find it a little baby/bathwater for Sam Young to insist that the best way to have overzealous BYI's is to remove them all together, never ask or talk about the LOC to youth, and that the church is dangerous because of it.  Okay, not just a little. I actually believe that is the wrong direction for us to head if what we're aiming for is healthier sexual knowledge in the church. 

In general, I stand in making differences in my faith community.  I strive to work with my leaders in sharing my perspectives and knowledge on these subjects. I want betterment to get closer to Zion. I see a lot of positive outlets and ways that people are trying to do that. Not perfectly, often not loudly, but doing it. I don't feel a need to take drastic, news catching methods, to do so. I don't feel a need to do something unethical in order to further dialogue (I find leaking info as that...I'm not an ends justify means sort of person 9 times out of 10). 

 

 

  With luv,

BD

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What is your IRL name?  What is your social security number?  What is your username/password for your bank account login?  What is the combination to the safe in your basement?  Where do you live?

Do you feel comfortable publicly answering these questions, given that I have neither a right nor a need to know any of this?

Gotta love the loaded question, BTW.  

It's not a matter of belief.  It's a statement of fact.

The ends justify the means.  Gotta love it.

You would be screaming bloody murder if Mr. McKnight used that logic as justification to encourage your friends and family steal your personal and sensitive information and publish it against your

-Smac

You don't have a right to his personal information. He owes you nothing. You have no standing or purpose in receiving his personal information. EVERYONE knows that. It's not in dispute.

What is in dispute is how much right members of the church have to information about the church. You seem to claim that members have no right to information. I disagree. There is a difference in philosophy about what information an institution like the church should make available to its members. But your continual attempt to falsely compare the relationship between the church and its members and 2 totally unrelated individuals is a false comparison. You are a smart person so I'm not sure how you don't see the difference. I'm beginning to believe it's intentional. You have no right to his personal information but members DO have the right to know what their church is doing and has done. HUGE difference here.

Should the church be responsive to questions about its policies on sxual abuse and how it has handled those cases? Do members have a right to know anything about the function of their church?

And if members do deserve information, how might they go about getting that information?

 

[lostindc]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What is your IRL name?  What is your social security number?  What is your username/password for your bank account login?  What is the combination to the safe in your basement?  Where do you live?

Do you feel comfortable publicly answering these questions, given that I have neither a right nor a need to know any of this?

Gotta love the loaded question, BTW.  

It's not a matter of belief.  It's a statement of fact.

The ends justify the means.  Gotta love it.

You would be screaming bloody murder if Mr. McKnight used that logic as justification to encourage your friends and family steal your personal and sensitive information and publish it against your will.  

Not really.

And accountability by theft and coercion is not admirable or helpful.

You mean the same Jesus who said this in Matthew 13?

And Mark 9:

And Mark 8:

And Mark 7:

And Luke 5:

And Matthew 16:

And Luke 8:

See also Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7:

I am curious what you make of Paul's statement in Acts 1:

What information was Paul referencing here that Jesus needed to keep hidden from His followers?  After all, by your reckoning, anything not published to the world is being "hidden."  And "hiding" things is - again by your apparent reckoning - necessarily a bad and evil thing.

And yet there were many instances where Jesus Christ kept silence, and commanded His servants to keep silent.

Thanks,

-Smac

You didn't answer of my questions, and you won't.  You pop more questions in order to avoid the tough stuff.  

There's a huge difference between institutional failure and exposing these failures, than asking a message board poster for their social security number.  I believe you argue for a living, therefore you do realize this type of argumentation is only distracting.  You're uneasy about the leaks, because now no area is safe within the Church from potential exposure.  

You stated, "You would be screaming bloody murder if Mr. McKnight used that logic as justification to encourage your friends and family steal your personal and sensitive information and publish it against your will."  

Yes, of course, it would suck, but we're talking about leaks regarding an institution, it's leaders, and employees.  You would be screaming bloody murder if your kid was in that MTC basement or in one of the creepy worthiness interviews gone wrong and you would've wished someone intervened early.  Unfortunately, we're discovering years of institutional failure, and not enough intervention.  This doesn't mean Mormonism isn't true, it means we have some significant failures.

[changed]

On 9/12/2018 at 10:24 AM, smac97 said:

The Church's concern (or lack thereof) for victims of abuse is not reasonably inferred from a single document purportedly from a law firm working for the Church.  A law firm is going to evaluate legal issues, and would probably not be involved in counseling / pastoral care.  Moreover, the document is a spreadsheet, and is therefore very truncated and cursory.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The church's concern for victims can also be deduced by the number of support groups out there.

Try this out - go to: https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/?lang=eng

How many groups exist in your area to:

1. a) support addicts
2. b) support "victims" or friends / families of addicts?

In my area, there are 9 face-to-face meetings within 25 miles for addicts and only 4 groups that support what I would term "victims" or friends/family/spouse of addicts.  

I have personally experienced this - abusers are going to support groups, and there is no support group for victims in my area.