Church series on P*** use, 70 videos

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

You are being rude. 

Impossible, I am nothing but sweetness and light.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

I have observed what I think you are trying to explain.  I've seen posters make an observation, which is negative toward the church/members and they will get a number of posters say that it is not so.  My own experience is that the observation is often correct, but not it is not as commonplace as the poster is claiming and is an example of behavior that is not taught or encouraged within the church, but is anecdotal of some people or areas.   An example would be a discussion we had on congratulating members on callings received.  I have observed this, but it's not encouraged or taught--it is some particular individuals who give away their own private perceptions that they believe some callings are prestigious or desirable and deserve congratulations.   It also is something that is cultural and most likely to happen in certain places and not in others.

Thank you, thank you. 

[Rain]

One thing I have seen is that an OP will start a thread telling what they have observed and then making a conclusion that is negative towards the church or its members. This happens a LOT here.

I know when this happens my immediate reaction if I haven't observed what the OP is saying, is to defend the church from that conclusion by sharing that not all people see what the OP has observed.

Now if the OP starts out by saying "I've been seeing this around me. What can we do about this?" then I don't get put on the defensive.

That doesn't mean that I should be defensive. It just means it is natural to start that way when hurtful/wrong/argumentative conclusions are made.

Also I think it is very important that we both recognize that some people will see a lot of a said behavior and some will not see any. It doesn't mean the person seeing a lot is making up stories and it doesn't mean that the person who sees none is blind. Sometimes it is a matter of being educated enough to see something. Other times it is just where we are/what we are involved with.

So I really think that for the great majority of us - if people treated their observations as something to help solve rather than to make negative conclusions then we would have less people quickly trying to defend by sharing their experiences of not seeing the behavior. 

 

 

 

[alter idem]

On 6/25/2019 at 11:19 PM, Tacenda said:

Could the problem be the church? Their way of handling the porn issue, since there are so many in the church with the issue? Is it a dumb suggestion to say to the church to back off of these videos about porn? Back off of these constant talks? Is there the possibility that some that weren't interested or young enough not to know what porn means, to look it up and then it gets started? Or the question in bishop's interviews about the M word and the porn word, causing young youth to look into it and then try it and the next interview they confess and then it starts the shame game and it evolves into these addictions. 

It seems to be common to blame the church for 'creating' pornography problems.  If that's the conclusion you come to, then you are blaming God for the porn problem, after all, he's the one who insisted that we avoid even lusting after another person in our minds and he has pushed calling certain behaviors 'SIN'!!!    God is so prudish and strict, can't he see that humans are naturally wired to want to look at porn and it only makes them feel bad about themselves when he tells them not to or tells his servants to preach against it?  And really, why call anything a sin?  It only makes people feel bad and causes shame, which makes it worse.  Yep, it's God's fault, since he's the one who who says some behaviors are sin and when we do it, we feel shame.  Why can't God just accept us as we are?   

Do you see where that kind of thinking takes us?  I think this is what Satan tells us and he's very persuasive, imo.

 

Pornography didn't come to be with the internet, but it became a serious problem for a lot of people once it did.  It used to be that you had to go to a sleezy little corral in a magazine shop to buy it, or send away to have it mailed to you.  But with the internet, it was free and it was right there on your computer, just a couple clicks away.  If you had a computer in a room where you could have some privacy, you're all set.  Now with private browsers, no one ever needs to know you are looking at it.  A lot of people would never have searched it out, if it had been hard to get to and embarrassing if caught, but those problems are gone.  That is why it's a problem for religious people who are taught by God and his servants that they should NOT look at it.  But, we humans are curious and we have natural desires and there's this pesky thing called opposition in all things and so Satan and his minions have found it's a marvelous temptation to use to mess us up.

I doubt most 12 or 13 year olds find out about 'M' from a Bishop's interview--I'd expect most figure it out for themselves because they've got this body 24 hours a day for a decade and all it takes is a little experimentation and if they haven't figured it out, they've got friends to enlighten them.  They've got phones or their friends have phones, believe me, they are going to be exposed to pornography way before they ever have a Bishop's interview with one of the rare more explicit ones who gets into too many details.

If we want to deal with the pornography problem, we can't pretend it doesn't exist.  And if we want to help the users and the victims (the spouses), then we can't offer excuses by saying that if the church would only 'back off' and not talk about the problem so much, it wouldn't be a problem.  That only makes it easier for the user to continue using and blaming others for his/her behavior and it causes the victims to feel more isolated and desperate that something is wrong with them when they feel so betrayed and traumatized by this behavior.

[bluebell]

An example that the church is not ignoring those impacted by the pornography use of family members.

You are never to blame for a spouse's pornography problem

[alter idem]

On 6/28/2019 at 6:34 AM, changed said:

 

I have shared my story on here before... have 3 people in my family who are in jail due to porn use followed by abuse.  I left Mormonism due to abuse from those who are in authority, and how this abuse was handled.  (In fact it was not handled - abuser was enabled, years and years and years of unchecked abuse at the hands of bishopric.

What you experienced was out of the ordinary, thankfully--however it adds insult to injury that it's not uncommon if a family has abusive member(s), the pattern will be passed on and continued.  Is that what happened in your family--I'd assume it was.  Family members refusing to admit what was happening or blaming the victim and the  leaders following their lead and not protecting the victims either.

But I must speak in defense of the church.  I think your experience turned you against the church, when actually the 'church' isn't at fault because it's teachings were the one thing that could have protected you and your family from this evil.  If those family members had been truly living the gospel, they never would have been involved with pornography and abuse--it is anathema to what we are taught and they knew this.  Unless they are a sociopath, they can't have listened to church teachings and not have their conscience warn them numerous times before they stopped listening.

I agree that at times, church leaders add to the problem, but so do families.  Family members will at times, cover up or deny the abuse(for numerous reasons) so that it continues and more victims are created.  Sometimes they will only go to the Bishop and not report criminal behavior to the police--this happened a lot, I think in years past.  Bishops and even Stake Pres. can also be in denial that the abuse was 'that bad' or want to believe the perpetrator that it was a one time thing, or the victim misunderstood their attentions or the victim was 'leading them on' etc..... They are worried about ruining a person's life or blowing up their family by actually taking substantial action against the perp and doing what needs to be done to stop it.  Perpetrators are often very adept at manipulating loved ones, church members and leaders--the case of Jan Broberg is a perfect example of a master manipulator who's victims were no match for his skills at getting away with the most heinous behavior.  He manipulated her parents and shamed them into silence and this added to tying the hands of church leaders who might have been able to get them to turn the guy in.  He manipulated and controlled a young, innocent girl to the point that she was protecting her perpetrator, which allowed him to continue as well, so this added to the length of time he got away with it.

Those kinds of situations happen and sometimes, in this life, the guilty go unpunished, but they won't in the next life.  God sees all and no one will get away with anything--the unrepentant sins of the abusers and delinquent church leaders will be shouted from the rooftops and they will pay for what they've done.  That's a doctrine the church teaches, but church members are often fallible and weak--just like those foolish leaders and family members who refused to do what they could to stop what they knew was happening and become complicit in the crimes against victims and will have to answer to God one day.

 

[BlueDreams]

On 6/28/2019 at 12:28 AM, MustardSeed said:

The accusation seems extreme and unfounded enough that I assume there is more to Changed’s story. 

Not sure why folks are so riled up by the assertion , honestly.  It’s as if she said Mormons are all blue. 

Im curious.  

My weekend got a little chaotic.

on my end, I wouldn’t have cared if she said all mormons are blue. It would have been a little funny, but the attribution doesn’t mean anything.

pedophilia, unfaithfulness, weaker marriages, etc does have a moral judgment. It’s characterizing a whole group of people negatively in simplified terms. That’s a stereotype and is a form of bigotry IMHO. If the attribution was towards any other group, we would call it as much. That it stems from hurt does not justify stereotyping. That’s my problem. Is she was doing this to some other group, intermingling common caricatures of the group (say catholics, muslims, racial/ethnic groups, etc), i would equally have a problem with it. 

 

With luv, 

BD

[MustardSeed]

41 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

My weekend got a little chaotic.

on my end, I wouldn’t have cared if she said all mormons are blue. It would have been a little funny, but the attribution doesn’t mean anything.

pedophilia, unfaithfulness, weaker marriages, etc does have a moral judgment. It’s characterizing a whole group of people negatively in simplified terms. That’s a stereotype and is a form of bigotry IMHO. If the attribution was towards any other group, we would call it as much. That it stems from hurt does not justify stereotyping. That’s my problem. Is she was doing this to some other group, intermingling common caricatures of the group (say catholics, muslims, racial/ethnic groups, etc), i would equally have a problem with it. 

 

With luv, 

BD

Sure.  I think I understand.  

Her accusation sounded so emotional and unfounded though.  I mean even the soft hearted Nehor “went there” and told her to get help, so I think I was thinking along the lines of “oh, this sounds a little more like a personal and delicate situation than an arguing point.” So I didn’t feel any need to defend myself against the extreme statement. 

I recognize the need to address bigotry, certainly.  I saw this as something else. I’ve been wrong many times before. 

 

[changed]

On 6/29/2019 at 11:17 AM, alter idem said:

If we want to deal with the pornography problem, we can't pretend it doesn't exist.  

 

Yes... we can't pretend problems don't exist... within both followers and leaders.  

https://archive.org/details/INSTANCESOFCHILDSEXUALABUSEALLEGEDLYPERPETRATEDBYMEMBERSOFTHECHURCHOFJESUSCHRIST

I have not seen anyone on here address the problems created by those within leadership positions in the church?  

Edited June 30, 2019 by changed

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, changed said:

have not seen anyone on here address the problems created by those within leadership positions in the church?  

How do you perceive this as being done?

[changed]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

How do you perceive this as being done?

 

Background checks for those in leadership positions, no one-on-one interviews with anyone - ever.  Take the missionaries - they go in two's, do not enter a home of a single sister etc. - same rules should apply to everyone.  

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Background checks for those in leadership positions, no one-on-one interviews with anyone - ever.  Take the missionaries - they go in two's, do not enter a home of a single sister etc. - same rules should apply to everyone.  

How do you want people here to address those problems?

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Sure.  I think I understand.  

Her accusation sounded so emotional and unfounded though.  I mean even the soft hearted Nehor “went there” and told her to get help, so I think I was thinking along the lines of “oh, this sounds a little more like a personal and delicate situation than an arguing point.” So I didn’t feel any need to defend myself against the extreme statement. 

I recognize the need to address bigotry, certainly.  I saw this as something else. I’ve been wrong many times before. 

 

I see it a bit as both. Something that’s moved to caricature and bigotry based on a very negative personal experience. I’d read her story before (i lurk far more than i post) and knew where it was coming from...but it doesn’t make it excusable IMO. But i do get it. I had an negative experience (nothing abuse oriented, but a really poor end to a friendship). The man in question was a dark black man and for a while i could feel myself being a little avoidant of men that weren’t family that looked like that. I moved passed it...but if i hadn’t and instead began insisting all black men had the negative traits of this ex-friend and kept calling black men by inflammatory language...it would not be excusable. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[MustardSeed]

42 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I see it a bit as both. Something that’s moved to caricature and bigotry based on a very negative personal experience. I’d read her story before (i lurk far more than i post) and knew where it was coming from...but it doesn’t make it excusable IMO. But i do get it. I had an negative experience (nothing abuse oriented, but a really poor end to a friendship). The man in question was a dark black man and for a while i could feel myself being a little avoidant of men that weren’t family that looked like that. I moved passed it...but if i hadn’t and instead began insisting all black men had the negative traits of this ex-friend and kept calling black men by inflammatory language...it would not be excusable. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Ok. We see things differently, that’s ok.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

The man in question was a dark black man and for a while i could feel myself being a little avoidant of men that weren’t family that looked like that. I moved passed it...but if i hadn’t and instead began insisting all black men had the negative traits of this ex-friend and kept calling black men by inflammatory language...it would not be excusable. 

You just triggered an important memory. One P-day when I was a missionary, my companion and I were robbed by a large African-American man. I've never before seen race, but after this experience, every black man of approximately the same build would strike terror in my heart. It was completely involuntary, but I hated it! And I knew I couldn't let it continue, so I prayed and fasted for the ability to stop thinking/feeling that way, and it eventually worked. I was so glad!

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, changed said:

 

Yes... we can't pretend problems don't exist... within both followers and leaders.  

https://archive.org/details/INSTANCESOFCHILDSEXUALABUSEALLEGEDLYPERPETRATEDBYMEMBERSOFTHECHURCHOFJESUSCHRIST

I have not seen anyone on here address the problems created by those within leadership positions in the church?  

We have had many many threads about this, many of which included your histrionics, and now you want to claim no one is addressing it?

4 hours ago, changed said:

 

Background checks for those in leadership positions, no one-on-one interviews with anyone - ever.  Take the missionaries - they go in two's, do not enter a home of a single sister etc. - same rules should apply to everyone.  

Better yet we can just sell the chapels, shut down the church, and never interact with each other again. Problem solved.

 

This level of anger and hatred is toxic. It may be justified against the people who hurt you but you need to get help or resolve this so it stops perpetually hurting you.

[changed]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We have had many many threads about this, many of which included your histrionics, and now you want to claim no one is addressing it?

Better yet we can just sell the chapels, shut down the church, and never interact with each other again. Problem solved.

 

This level of anger and hatred is toxic. It may be justified against the people who hurt you but you need to get help or resolve this so it stops perpetually hurting you.

It is not extreme to require background checks, and avoid one-on-one scenerios- most organizations do this.  Most places of work do this, most schools do this - are they insane? Should principles and managers who require this seek therapy?  Do you think it is wrong and extreme for companies and schools to do these simple things?  Is it being angry and unreasonable to want the same simple protections in place at church which are already in place at work and school?

 

Wow...

Companies and schools, and volunteer groups who require background checks are not being "shut down"  ... it is not that much to ask.

 

Videos do not solve any problems.  Reasonable policies can.

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by changed

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

How do you want people here to address those problems?

Changed, could you answer this question please?

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, changed said:

It is not extreme to require background checks, and avoid one-on-one scenerios- most organizations do this.  Most places of work do this, most schools do this - are they insane? Should principles and managers who require this seek therapy?  Do you think it is wrong and extreme for companies and schools to do these simple things?  Is it being angry and unreasonable to want the same simple protections in place at church which are already in place at work and school?

 

Wow...

Companies and schools, and volunteer groups who require background checks are not being "shut down"  ... it is not that much to ask.

 

Videos do not solve any problems.  Reasonable policies can.

 

I have discussed why I believe the church running background checks is a waste of resources multiple times and why it is unlikely to help and would even be a liability issue because of the volunteer nature of those doing the teaching and those serving as administrators.

We have limited one on one to rare situations and even then we have someone outside and the person interviewed can get another person if it would make them more comfortable. I have also shared why I am uncomfortable with teenagers and children being mandated  to have their parents attend interviews with them when it is more likely for the parent to be an abuser then the bishop. My hyperbole about shutting it down was an indirect way of saying that I do not believe any policy change would satisfy you and help you move past the pain you feel. You would demand more and/or continue to complain about how slowly they were implemented.

The videos can potentially bring hope and healing. It may not help for everyone but for those it does that can be the beginning or a boost in solving problems.

I did not suggest therapy for you because you want policies changed. Others have supported similar policies and I did not suggest the same for them. I suggested it because you are need to get through some pain that is clearly revisiting you in a continuous cycle. It does not have to be that way forever and you do not have to feel this resentment and anger forever. I hope and pray you can find peace.

Edited July 1, 2019 by The Nehor

[changed]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have discussed why I believe the church running background checks is a waste of resources multiple times and why it is unlikely to help and would even be a liability issue because of the volunteer nature of those doing the teaching and those serving as administrators.

We have limited one on one to rare situations and even then we have someone outside and the person interviewed can get another person if it would make them more comfortable. I have also shared why I am uncomfortable with teenagers and children being mandated  to have their parents attend interviews with them when it is more likely for the parent to be an abuser then the bishop. My hyperbole about shutting it down was an indirect way of saying that I do not believe any policy change would satisfy you and help you move past the pain you feel. You would demand more and/or continue to complain about how slowly they were implemented.

The videos can potentially bring hope and healing. It may not help for everyone but for those it does that can be the beginning or a boost in solving problems.

I did not suggest therapy for you because you want policies changed. Others have supported similar policies and I did not suggest the same for them. I suggested it because you are need to get through some pain that is clearly revisiting you in a continuous cycle. It does not have to be that way forever and you do not have to feel this resentment and anger forever. I hope and pray you can find peace.

 

Want to see how most volunteer org's work?

https://apps.raptortech.com/Apply/MTA4NDplbi1VUw==?fbclid=IwAR0ZeXcFV7XCNYOZpB5ekRnhIU3DKd4u5M8ex9sANNDrcgHKfP9Y4MYxDzo

liability comes when background checks are not performed.... but you know... I guess these volunteer groups are wrong to do background checks and it is a waste of money to protect children with this simple measure.  

Limited problems?  You did not read through the link did you...

https://archive.org/details/INSTANCESOFCHILDSEXUALABUSEALLEGEDLYPERPETRATEDBYMEMBERSOFTHECHURCHOFJESUSCHRIST

as you are reading, consider the small % of cases that actually are reported and prosecuted, so multiply what is in that book by 9 or 10.

Edited July 1, 2019 by changed

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, changed said:

Videos do not solve any problems.  Reasonable policies can.

The reasonable policies that you have listed do not solve any problems either though.  They can help, but I think it's dangerous to let ourselves believe that the changes you are talking about can end sexual abuse.  School bus drivers are required to get background checks, for example, but that has not stopped a handful from still molesting kids each year.

Reasonable policies can help, just like videos and other measures can, but there is no magic combination of policies that will keep all abusers from being able to ever abuse.   

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Want to see how most volunteer org's work?

https://apps.raptortech.com/Apply/MTA4NDplbi1VUw==?fbclid=IwAR0ZeXcFV7XCNYOZpB5ekRnhIU3DKd4u5M8ex9sANNDrcgHKfP9Y4MYxDzo

liability comes when background checks are not performed.... but you know... I guess these volunteer groups are wrong to do background checks and it is a waste of money to protect children with this simple measure.  

Limited problems?  You did not read through the link did you...

I know how most volunteer organizations work. I have volunteered many times and have been subject to multiple background checks.

The church would have increased liability because someone would have to administer and monitor these checks and collecting information on members in an official capacity is a massive liability issue. Most volunteer organizations have employees to handle this which changes the relationship. There is also the cost. Over half the ward would have to have regular background checks on a regular basis and give permission for it. Some would refuse because they have history that could come up that would not disqualify them from working with children but they do not want anyone to find out about it. Who runs it? The bishop? His counselors? The Stake? What happens when someone blabs about the person with an old conviction for fraud or drug use? Massive liability issue.

All these problems and most predators do not have a record to find so they are not that helpful.

No, I did not read the link. I am aware abuse happens. I have volunteered to help children who have been abused. It is bad. I do not believe abuse happening is a blank check to demand any change you want. I bet in most of those abuse cases though church procedure was not followed by some involved.

Edit: Skimmed it and yep, I was right.

Edited July 1, 2019 by The Nehor

[alter idem]

17 hours ago, changed said:

 

Background checks for those in leadership positions, no one-on-one interviews with anyone - ever.  Take the missionaries - they go in two's, do not enter a home of a single sister etc. - same rules should apply to everyone.  

The problem with your suggestions are that you view the CofJCofLDS as just another volunteer organization--you don't LOVE the church, have a testimony of it and it's mission.  If I had to guess, I'd say you bitterly resent and dislike the church.  So, your suggestions as well as Sam Young's similar suggestions, come from a position of dislike and a desire to see the institution's demise or see it become simply ineffective.

And some suggestions are already done.  Bishop's don't meet completely alone, they always have someone 'babysitting' outside their door-but just because you don't want to meet privately with a Bishop, doesn't mean everyone doesn't want to.  Do you have the right to demand that those who do want private spiritual counseling can't receive it?  IMO, you don't have the right to tell another adult that they can't do that, and some feel they need it.  Teachers with youth are always teamed together now, so no teacher is alone.  There are a lot of changes which have been made, to try to prevent abuse.  If the wards and members follow church instructions and rules, then children and members should be protected.

Demanding background checks for callings is not feasible.  It is already done for Bishops--I'm certain, because before a Bishop is called, his name is submitted to church headquarters--I expect they are doing a background check.  But, not all problems will show up, that's the nature of life, you can't remove every risk.  There is an element of trust which MUST exist within a church and it's congregations--if you don't have that, you might as well just have an impersonal service and no interaction among members except for a social hour--maybe and then everyone goes home and doesn't think about church the rest of the week.  But that's not our church and to insist that we must go to a model such as that...we'd no longer be the only 'true and living church upon the earth' (Jesus said that about THIS church), instead we'd be just another one of the many that 'draw near' with their lips but their hearts are far from God.  To those of us who love the gospel of Jesus Christ and have testimonies of this work, this is not something we will ever agree to, even to make peace with those who criticize and dislike us.

[MustardSeed]

24 minutes ago, alter idem said:

The problem with your suggestions are that you view the CofJCofLDS as just another volunteer organization--you don't LOVE the church, have a testimony of it and it's mission.  If I had to guess, I'd say you bitterly resent and dislike the church.  So, your suggestions as well as Sam Young's similar suggestions, come from a position of dislike and a desire to see the institution's demise or see it become simply ineffective.

And some suggestions are already done.  Bishop's don't meet completely alone, they always have someone 'babysitting' outside their door-but just because you don't want to meet privately with a Bishop, doesn't mean everyone doesn't want to.  Do you have the right to demand that those who do want private spiritual counseling can't receive it?  IMO, you don't have the right to tell another adult that they can't do that, and some feel they need it.  Teachers with youth are always teamed together now, so no teacher is alone.  There are a lot of changes which have been made, to try to prevent abuse.  If the wards and members follow church instructions and rules, then children and members should be protected.

Demanding background checks for callings is not feasible.  It is already done for Bishops--I'm certain, because before a Bishop is called, his name is submitted to church headquarters--I expect they are doing a background check.  But, not all problems will show up, that's the nature of life, you can't remove every risk.  There is an element of trust which MUST exist within a church and it's congregations--if you don't have that, you might as well just have an impersonal service and no interaction among members except for a social hour--maybe and then everyone goes home and doesn't think about church the rest of the week.  But that's not our church and to insist that we must go to a model such as that...we'd no longer be the only 'true and living church upon the earth' (Jesus said that about THIS church), instead we'd be just another one of the many that 'draw near' with their lips but their hearts are far from God.  To those of us who love the gospel of Jesus Christ and have testimonies of this work, this is not something we will ever agree to, even to make peace with those who criticize and dislike us.

This makes the most sense of anything on this thread imo.  

I think legitimately these petty (sorry) arguments all boil down to this argument:  We have Found The Truth ( vs ) You Are Wrong. 

 

 

[alter idem]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

This makes the most sense of anything on this thread imo.  

I think legitimately these petty (sorry) arguments all boil down to this argument:  We have Found The Truth ( vs ) You Are Wrong. 

 

 

I'm reminded of the story of Solomon and the baby that both women claimed.  I know it's a stretch, but I'll explain.  Just like the woman who was fine with cutting the baby in half, People like Sam Young and Changed demand Justice--changes to the church--even if it means destroying it in the process.  They see it as a false religion and wicked so they don't care if it's destroyed--they would think they are doing the world a favor by helping it along in it's demise.  But, Members; true believers with testimonies,  can't and will not support suggestions that would impede how the Lord has set it up or allow the world's influence to change it so that it no longer is the Lord's church.  We have a church which is not run by professionals, but instead, utilizes members to serve in callings, where they must learn to be guided by the spirit and the members are charged to look after one another.  I don't see how we can get rid of that model--we can and are trying to protect members from abuse and problems within the inspired system set up.