Jump to content

Post Mormon reaction to child abusers from their own community


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Frater Lumen said:

I will note that her attack on Lindsay Hansen Park was pretty obviously motivated partly by a personal grudge

A “personal grudge“ (or we could call it a logical response to having be damaged by Park, just as likely with the info given and her clear writing leans me that way) that is apparently relevant to what is going on.***. 
 

What did she say that was wrong in her assessment?

Or is this a version of dismissing what a woman says because she is seen as “emotional”?  How Victorian if so.

Whatever got you there, are you okay with dismissing any accusations coming from someone who has personal issues with what they are criticizing because that removes a ton of former critical members of the Church because that appears to be what you are doing.

***https://medium.com/what-we-know/tom-kimball-lindsay-hansen-park-predator-masking-and-an-alleged-threatened-murder-suicide-e205bfe612cd

Quote

And I’m angry at Lindsay for battling this sensitive situation without the qualifications or understanding necessary to handle it effectively. I’m also angry at her for the ways she has personally hurt me through her own contributions to predator masking. I do not trust her sincerity because I have not personally experienced her to be a sincere person

 

Link to post
18 hours ago, juliann said:

McMullin is one of the rare ones criticizing the woman who let all the news out. Interesting you think I'm not aware of the podcast as you continue to change the topic of MY thread. I'm going to ask you formally to stop it. This is the OP:

I am not interested in details, what I am interested in is the difference in reactions to the same behavior when it occurs with practicing Mormons as opposed to critics of Mormonism.

That is the topic of this thread. That was when I was only reading the good man with demons stuff. (I received push back for objecting to that by some in this thread.) It was quickly halted elsewhere. Meadowchick, I agree with you much of the time. Maybe most of the time. But this time, I'm disgusted with the hypocrisy and double standards of the critic group that always, always wants to section out their bad stuff and lay it at the feet of Mormonism even as they claim to be different people after discarding Mormonism. The leeway given this predator, the love, the excuses made would never, ever be seen if it was a practicing Mormon. Want to use the "but Mormons preach righteousness and have more responsibility" stuff? Well, this predator was on a podcast preaching that. I have yet to see that addressed at all. 

I have been open about my acknowledgment of the needed changes that critics have been a part of in the church. There is much that still needs to be done for women and girls. But pretending that predatory behavior...without a shred of data.... somehow has more of a place within the church than out of it is disgusting when this is a universal male problem in all cultures. I'm sick of it after watching all this unfold within the very community that considers itself the watchdog of all that is good and right.  Especially after more and more stories from women in that community emerge as to how they weren't believed when they complained about this guy.

So here is my question to you and the others, Meadowchick. We have had an extended period where there is no church for all practical purposes. Certainly no opportunities for all that institutional grooming. Has child sexual abuse decreased, Meadowchick?  

You did start the topic and it was the first post of it here referring to a real-time event and you chose to address it in terms of in-group out-group hypocrisy. 

For me, if we want to talk to the topic in a productive way, it should go back to "our own house" first. And to me, the in-group out-group borders are much less meaningful than the shared institution, culture, and all those connected to it. As an ex-Mormon, I still live in Mormonism's house. In my opinion, that's the most relevant topic here. The bystander reactions going on within the first few days are less important to me than people really recognizing the problems, raising the issues, and examining productive options for change.

If you just want to leave the topic at ex-Mormon hypocrisy, fine. But should I assume that, since you asked that last question, you want to continue down this topic regarding the church itself?

Link to post
13 hours ago, juliann said:

Here is the difference. This wasn't even a topic of discussion here before I put this up. When a practicing Mormon commits a crime, it is all over the critics' blogs and forums. They write newspaper articles. They picket. They protest. Every problem, every possible crack of opportunity is examined endlessly as something the church promoted.

imagine for a moment what the Mormon themed internet would look like right now if a prominent member of the Mormon community who gave temple tours, wrote for the community, did podcasts criticizing child abuse in "the world" was caught as a perpetrator himself? It would go on for weeks. Everyone within his circle would be blamed, bishops would be excoriated.  But this? Crickets

And yet...it is clear that many knew. The worst I read was about Sunstone after a female worker had been harrassed and attacked. What did they do? Why, they warned the other women. Pretty much the kinda stuff that is way too common. Is Sunstone going to be given the same treatment as the church? Crickets. But wait, surely they will be more empathetic to those who have been in the same unwinnable situations and also failed. They will understand now, right? They will turn this into a compaign to protect all children rather that get that evil church. Right? Crickets. All we get is...demons. 

*correction: Signature Books not Sunstone  

 

I think your OP and rant here is precipitous, though. When was the last time a noted LDS figure killed himself to avoid the consequences of their abuse? This is a very difficult situation to navigate. Kimball's cowardly actions, not facing up to his crimes, has left his wife and children to clean up after him. People who loved him are learning of his death and his crimes at the same time, because of the manner of his death. It makes it impossible to respond to the pain of all the victims of his harm without further harming at least one of them.

 

Link to post
6 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree. I have been following her for a while now. Yet at the moment I am worried that she is detracting from her own message by launching such a vague, personal attack on Park. My current inclination is that she and LHP may both be wrong about part of their current reactions, but that they're both doing some good things. 

Link to post
14 hours ago, juliann said:

Here is the difference. This wasn't even a topic of discussion here before I put this up. When a practicing Mormon commits a crime, it is all over the critics' blogs and forums. They write newspaper articles. They picket. They protest. Every problem, every possible crack of opportunity is examined endlessly as something the church promoted.

imagine for a moment what the Mormon themed internet would look like right now if a prominent member of the Mormon community who gave temple tours, wrote for the community, did podcasts criticizing child abuse in "the world" was caught as a perpetrator himself? It would go on for weeks. Everyone within his circle would be blamed, bishops would be excoriated.  But this? Crickets

And yet...it is clear that many knew. The worst I read was about Sunstone after a female worker had been harrassed and attacked. What did they do? Why, they warned the other women. Pretty much the kinda stuff that is way too common. Is Sunstone going to be given the same treatment as the church? Crickets. But wait, surely they will be more empathetic to those who have been in the same unwinnable situations and also failed. They will understand now, right? They will turn this into a compaign to protect all children rather that get that evil church. Right? Crickets. All we get is...demons. 

*correction: Signature Books not Sunstone  

 

I, for one critic, think you have a good point.  I agree there seems to be over-reaction sometimes in epic proportions on critics' attempts to blame the Church.  That's a big problem.  There often seems to be little responsibility on the part of the critic when it comes to accusations, even if at times I see other critics call out egregious attacks. Its not enough.   

You also may have a point when it comes to Signature books.  I don't know how everything went or what happened.  It sounds like you know more than me.  But it could be there has been a culture conducive to magnifying the calling or problem.  

Both points:  fair.  And I have nothing more to add at this time.  

Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

You apparently don’t believe these is a need for organizations  to help protect women then, correct?  Does that mean you are also letting the Church off for any future adult victims of abusers leaders have been warned about?

——


Kimball sexually harassed an adult woman who took over his job when he knew she would be alone in the building for over an hour. She describes herself as traumatized.  She stated Signature Books acted to protect her in the future at work.  But given how major players have said there weren’t even rumors, it seems pretty clear they did nothing further or more would have known.  I am not condemning them for not acting on a wider basis, I just think the same standard of judgment should be applied to church leaders who are likely at a loss of what to do as well at times and do the best they know how.

PS: it was Signature Books, not Sunstone

Respectfully, I think that it should behoove an organization that sees to the nurturing, care, education, and spiritual nourishment of millions of children to do the job of protecting the children. The fact that the church claims that it is its job and competency to do these things is the reason why people judge its ability to live up to that claim. You guys are comparing apples to oranges here, and my saying so is not a "neener, neener." It is a basic point of reason and logic. In the comments made here on this thread, I am reading, "I can't believe these terribly unfair ex-Mormons who are criticizing the church, an organization that is all about providing spiritual nourishment and healthy activities for kids, for not protecting the kids, when their organizations that have little to do with those goals have not managed to succeed at this either."

I applaud Signature Books for protecting their employee, as we would expect them to do and as is their legal obligation. I am not sure what that has to do with Sunstone's alleged failures. We can discuss particulars of individual cases if you like, but the two situations, again, seem to be quite different. Moreover, Sunstone is a very diverse group of adult people that gathers for conferences and reads magazines. Such a group does not offer the services or have the kind of structure to create the sort of expectations and obligations you guys seem to be imposing on it.

Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

Ok I thought I was going to agree with Juliann's point and move on...but this got me.

Quote

In the past, men have latched onto women’s stories of rape and blasted the stories throughout the interwebs for the purpose of harming other men and the Mormon church. Women’s stories of victimhood have predictably become the battleground for men’s grudges against other men. What’s new? Nothing. These men are not victim advocates, but activists fowarding their own agendas.

This is really a false dichotomy, actually a couple.  Men and women have latched on to women's stories along with some men's stories.  With each story that comes up I get nothing but sickness in my stomach due to the pain male predators have caused.  Its scary that nearly all, some 98 plus percent, of these attackers are male.  And dreadfully awful that a higher percent, it seems, of these victims are female or other non-male.  The attack of suggesting devilish intentions by vaguely stating "their own agendas" is simply unhelpful.  Afterall, what does this lady do but promote her own show her own victim advocacy?  It's all about the victims to her, and to me it's much more.  There is possibility for us to have less victims through all the conversation, promoted by those whom she dismisses as opportunists intent on promoting self.  I liked some of her points, but to conclude that she's to be trusted while nearly everyone else is to be treated with skepticism seems to be nothing short of self-promotion.  And yet I don't think she can't contribute in large and effectual ways.  

Sorry I don't think I was clear, if not:  It's a false dichotomy to suggest those who are opportunists in one way are not also interested in helping or victim advocacy.  Its a false dichotomy to suggest those who might be taking opportunity with victims to satisfy grudges can't also be trying to help and be victim advocates.  

Link to post
10 hours ago, Calm said:

A “personal grudge“ (or we could call it a logical response to having be damaged by Park, just as likely with the info given and her clear writing leans me that way) that is apparently relevant to what is going on.***. 
 

What did she say that was wrong in her assessment?

Or is this a version of dismissing what a woman says because she is seen as “emotional”?  How Victorian if so.

Whatever got you there, are you okay with dismissing any accusations coming from someone who has personal issues with what they are criticizing because that removes a ton of former critical members of the Church because that appears to be what you are doing.

***https://medium.com/what-we-know/tom-kimball-lindsay-hansen-park-predator-masking-and-an-alleged-threatened-murder-suicide-e205bfe612cd

Quote

And I’m angry at Lindsay for battling this sensitive situation without the qualifications or understanding necessary to handle it effectively. I’m also angry at her for the ways she has personally hurt me through her own contributions to predator masking. I do not trust her sincerity because I have not personally experienced her to be a sincere person

 

Wow.  Lots of playing with fire here.  By HLP.  By the author of the above piece (Anne McMullin).

Gossipmongering.  That seems to be what this is.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 

Sorry I don't think I was clear, if not:  It's a false dichotomy to suggest those who are opportunists in one way are not also interested in helping or victim advocacy.  Its a false dichotomy to suggest those who might be taking opportunity with victims to satisfy grudges can't also be trying to help and be victim advocates.  

 McMullin wins the credentials battle, however, I'll give her that.  She does bring up the worst example of this topic, perhaps. Dehlin is well known for being an offender on more than one level, there have been too many reports from women. Yet he has remained untouched or as she calls it, unmasked. Again, something that has to be cleaned up if there can be any claim of credibility when lecturing others on how to clean up their house. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Wow.  Lots of playing with fire here.  By HLP.  By the author of the above piece (Anne McMullin).

Gossipmongering.  That seems to be what this is.

Thanks,

-Smac

Dehlin probably has the most complaints of any exmo. Her openness is shocking but I've read this stuff before and it gets worse. That he hasn't made a legal move makes it pretty darn clear that it would likely bring a very uncomfortable accounting. This is an extraordinary and ongoing instance of exmos not listening to women.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
11 hours ago, Calm said:

Anne McMullin seems to be playing with fire.  

She says: "There is a new power in publicly exposing abusers."  Unless, of course, the abuser is innocent of the charge.  Or the charge may be overblown.  

In your previous link you quoted Anne McMullin as critcizing Lindsay Hansen Park:

Quote

It appears that, according to Lindsay, the gist of the story is that a number of women accused Tom of child sex predation, that Lindsay got word of the allegations, conducted her own investigation and then spread the word. According to Lindsay, Tom then threatened a murder-suicide but settled on suicide alone.

It also appears that Lindsay did some speaking for the women making the allegations. It is unclear whether or not she broke any promises of confidentiality when she “felt comfortable telling people” or “told some orgs that would be impacted by the news.”

It’s more than clear that this was far too sensitive a situation for Lindsay to have taken on.
...
I’m angry about all the predator masking that goes on in both Mormonism and ex-Mormonism.

And I’m angry at Lindsay for battling this sensitive situation without the qualifications or understanding necessary to handle it effectively. I’m also angry at her for the ways she has personally hurt me through her own contributions to predator masking. I do not trust her sincerity because I have not personally experienced her to be a sincere person.

Um, what?  So does Anne McMullin have "the qualifications or understanding necessary to handle {such things} effectively?"

Or are they both just trying to outdo each other in the Gossipmongering Olympics?

McMullin's "10 Ways" article goes on to state "Ten things you need to know about victims so you can discern between true victim adovcates and imposters."

Before we get to those, what "qualifications" does Anne McMullin have, such that she can competently differentiate "between true victim advocates and imposters?"

Here's the list:

Quote

1. Victims need to safe ways to use their own voices. A true victim advocate strives to create safe ways for victims speak.

I don't know what this means.  Do "imposters" create dangerous "ways for victims {to} speak?"

Quote

2. Victims need confidentiality and control over their own stories. A true victim advocate never speaks for victims or publicly shares victims’ stories without victims’ express and explicit permission. A true victim advocate only breaks confidentiality to report abusers to appropriate legal and protective authorities.

Um, isn't this the same person who recently lambasted Lindsay Hansen-Park for "predator masking?"

Quote

3. Victims need to be the priority. A true victim advocate never exposes victims for the purpose of promoting any “higher cause” or promoting or protecting the advocate. A true victim advocate wants what is right for the victim, not for the self or for anyone else.

So if a purported victim tells a self-appointed "advocate" about abuse, but does not authorize the advocate to report that abuse to law enforcement, is the advocate then guilty of "predator masking?"

And what about what the law says?  What if the advocate is legally required to report allegations of abuse?

Quote

4. Victims sharing their stories are often in very real and legitimate danger. A true victim advocate understands that predators are people who can be counted on to retaliate. Predators can and will fight back, often ruthlessly. A true victim advocate understands the complexities of the negative consequences victims face when they find the courage to share their stories.

This sounds good, though I question whether Anne McMullin herself "understands the complexities."

Quote

5. Victims need the right to guage their own safety; they need the right to choose not to publicly share their story in order to protect themselves. A true victim advocate is deferent to the reality of retaliation and is therefore deferent to an victim when a victim decides not publicly expose a predator. A true victim advocate understands that it may take years for an adult victim of domestic violence to leave an abusive situation. A true victim advocate respects adult victims’ rights to make their own decisions.

Okay.  So what's all this stuff about "predator masking."  Is the "true victim advocate" engaging in it when they are "deferent to a victim" who "decides {to} not publicly expose a predator?"

Also, is there is consideration given to the possibility of false claims?  To the presumption of innocence?  Do "true victim advocate{s}" take such things into account?  As part of the "complexities" and such?

Quote

6. Sometimes victims need anonymity in order to minimize the risk of retaliation. Sometimes a true victim advocate speaks for victims for the purpose of safeguarding victims and protecting them from retaliation. A true victim advocate never speaks for victims without victims’ express and explicit permission.

License to gossip.  Got it.

I'm having a hard time taking Anne McMullin seriously.  She seems to be just making this stuff up as she goes along.

Quote

7. Victims need someone to share the burden of telling their stories. A true victim advocate is emotionally prepared to shoulder part of the backlash that inevitably occurs when victims gain the courage to speak.

Backlash is "inevitable?"

Quote

8. Victims need solid support from advocates who take personal responsibility for their own decisions to advocate. A true victim advocate takes personal responsibility for the decision to advocate and never blames victims for any harm that comes to the advocate because victims told their stories. A true victim advocate does not publicly promote the self as a secondary victim because the advocate was harmed when the victim spoke.

Not sure what this means.

Quote

9. Victims benefit when advocates follow the best due process available. A true victim advocate relies on the best available professionals and procedures to discern truth from error before publicly promoting allegations. A true victim advocate is committed to remaining loyal to the best interests of both victims and the accused by working to ensure false allegations are not prematurely publicly aired.

This is sort of staggering.  What does "best due process" mean?  Who gets to determine that?  What does "publicly promoting allegations" mean?  

And how on earth can someone designating herself as a "victim advocate" claim to be "loyal to the best interests of both victims and the accused"?

Are "false allegations" okay if they are publicly aired, just not "prematurely?"  

How does Anne McMullin propose to differentiate "false allegations" from legitimate ones?

What on earth is Anne McMullin doing here?

Quote

10. Victims need to be the center of their own stories. A true victim advocate puts victims above the self and never publicly puts the self into the center of victims’ stories.

Says Anne McMullin, who seems to be doing just that.

Quote

I come from a Mormon and ex-Mormon background. My Mormon communities are rife with exploiters exploiting the exploited for the sake of self-promotion and self-aggrandizement.

Says Anne McMullin, who seems to be doing a fair amount of self-promoting.

Quote

Mormons and ex-Mormons seem to thrive on public shaming. It’s a definite cultural flaw.

On the What We Know Podcast we use case studies, evidence, stories and truth telling to empower victims and highlight the abuses of public figures, including public figures who fake being victim advocates for personal gain.

Um, what?  Isn't Anne McMullin a self-appointed arbiter of "abuse?"  She gets to decide who the abusers/exploiters are.  She is advocating for publicly shaming such persons if and when she decides allegations against them are true.

What a weird article.

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post

I'm still no clearer on the point of this thread. Is it just to say that we shouldn't publicly air out our struggles to make sense of a situation like this (which I would agree with), or is the thread meant to say something more broadly about exmormon critics? 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to post

From Anne McMullin:

Quote

I’m also angry at her for the ways she has personally hurt me through her own contributions to predator masking. I do not trust her sincerity because I have not personally experienced her to be a sincere person

What?  Lindsay hurt Anne by masking predators?  I thought Lindsay said she only recently learned and confirmed Tom's sins?  Was Anne victimized by Tom?  Or is she saying Lindsay is guilty of covering for or hiding other predators some of whom or one of whom hurt Anne?  This sounds exceptionally messy.

Along with Juliann's comments about other predators hanging out in these exmormon communities...I"m finding this all really sad and ugly, kind of like when I hear of a Mormon predator who seemed to use his status or position to justify or hurt others.

Also, I don't know that Dehlin has done anything near the level of predatory stuff.  I don't know how he got brought up here.  I heard one lady's version of events with Dehlin, (which put him quite close to that type of behavior) but it seemed most agreed there were many questions about the allegation.  I also recall some complained that he didn't pay women, but a woman or two who contributed spoke up for him too, so that came off a little iffy.  Seems like a stretch to throw his name in here.  

Link to post
12 hours ago, Calm said:

Thanks, I'll check her podcast out. But is she another John Dehlin and Lindsay Park Hansen? For me trust is hardly there anymore of anyone now. Some days I wish we could go back in time and just have a paper newspaper. :(

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm still no clearer on the point of this thread. Is it just to say that we shouldn't publicly air out our struggles to make sense of a situation like this (which I would agree with), or is the thread meant to say something more broadly about exmormon critics? 

It is a discussion topic. It is about the notable difference in response coming from ex/prog/postMormons who are regular critics of the LDS church's response to child abuse. These same people have filled the internet with everything wrong with another group's approach while not applying one bit of it to one of their own.  They think themselves experts in what another group should do and how they should do it. They rip into anyone who fails their high bar and form virtual mobs to bring them down. They victim blame to the extreme when it happens to others, they brought it on themselves because...culture. They do know how to apply mercy, as we can see. But only for their own.  

I think one thread noting this extraordinary display isn't unremarkable. I would be encouraged by the sudden need to make us all one big community but it will only last until the next complaint against the church members they demonize. Most can't even pull off the one big community so don't look at us now without it turning into church bashing. I don't mean to include those who recognize this is not a problem of one group over another and/or have admitted the hypocrisy. There are admirable folk who have left the church, many. Unfortunately, they are always outshouted by the Mormon haters who are more invested in pinning abuse on the church than solving it. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Anne McMullin seems to be playing with fire.  

She says: "There is a new power in publicly exposing abusers."  Unless, of course, the abuser is innocent of the charge.  Or the charge may be overblown.  

In your previous link you quoted Anne McMullin as critcizing Lindsay Hansen Park:

Um, what?  So does Anne McMullin have "the qualifications or understanding necessary to handle {such things} effectively?"

 

Actually, she does have the qualifications. So as strange and unclear as this piece is, she isn't an amateur like the others. How that ultimately plays out remains to be seen. It is disappointing that your first reaction is to always, always defend the man. 

Link to post
8 minutes ago, juliann said:

It is a discussion topic. It is about the notable difference in response coming from ex/prog/postMormons who are regular critics of the LDS church's response to child abuse. These same people have filled the internet with everything wrong with another group's approach while not applying one bit of it to one of their own.  They think themselves experts in what another group should do and how they should do it. They rip into anyone who fails their high bar and form virtual mobs to bring them down. They victim blame to the extreme when it happens to others, they brought it on themselves because...culture. They do know how to apply mercy, as we can see. But only for their own.  

I think one thread noting this extraordinary display isn't unremarkable. I would be encouraged by the sudden need to make us all one big community but it will only last until the next complaint against the church members they demonize. Most can't even pull off the one big community so don't look at us now without it turning into church bashing. I don't mean to include those who recognize this is not a problem of one group over another and/or have admitted the hypocrisy. There are admirable folk who have left the church, many. Unfortunately, they are always outshouted by the Mormon haters who are more invested in pinning abuse on the church than solving it. 

So, it's the latter. Fair enough. 

I remember when I was working at the Church Office Building, and the Gerry Pond business became public. I had worked with him several times, but I honestly didn't know him well enough to have an opinion about him (other than he was kind of unpleasant to me personally). Anyway, the stuff I've read in the last week or so reminds me of a lot of conversations I heard at work about Gerry Pond. The difference, I suppose, is that those conversations were not in public.

We're all hypocrites who tend to be more critical of our "enemies" than of our friends. I suppose we need a thread once in a while to remind us of that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, it's the latter. Fair enough. 

I remember when I was working at the Church Office Building, and the Gerry Pond business became public. I had worked with him several times, but I honestly didn't know him well enough to have an opinion about him (other than he was kind of unpleasant to me personally). Anyway, the stuff I've read in the last week or so reminds me of a lot of conversations I heard at work about Gerry Pond. The difference, I suppose, is that those conversations were not in public.

We're all hypocrites who tend to be more critical of our "enemies" than of our friends. I suppose we need a thread once in a while to remind us of that.

I think it's definitely worth bringing up..  It can get problematic enough it deserves conversation.  On that note, I appreciate it.  

Link to post
Just now, stemelbow said:

I think it's definitely worth bringing up..  It can get problematic enough it deserves conversation.  On that note, I appreciate it.  

I was just confused as to the point of it. I appreciate Juliann clarifying.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, juliann said:

Actually, she does have the qualifications.

Okay.  What are they?  

Quote

So as strange and unclear as this piece is, she isn't an amateur like the others. How that ultimately plays out remains to be seen. It is disappointing that your first reaction is to always, always defend the man. 

You're projecting here.  I don't view this as a Gender Wars issue.  If a man was purveying gossip about a woman, I would voice the same objections and concerns.

I don't know Tom Kimball, and feel no kinship or affinity with him at all.

I have, in the past, found plenty of fault with "the man."  John Dehlin.  Ryan McKnight.  Consig.  And with some women, too.  Kate Kelly, for example.

I don't take sides based on gender.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

From Anne McMullin:

What?  Lindsay hurt Anne by masking predators?  I thought Lindsay said she only recently learned and confirmed Tom's sins?  Was Anne victimized by Tom?  Or is she saying Lindsay is guilty of covering for or hiding other predators some of whom or one of whom hurt Anne?  This sounds exceptionally messy.

Along with Juliann's comments about other predators hanging out in these exmormon communities...I"m finding this all really sad and ugly, kind of like when I hear of a Mormon predator who seemed to use his status or position to justify or hurt others.

Also, I don't know that Dehlin has done anything near the level of predatory stuff.  I don't know how he got brought up here.  I heard one lady's version of events with Dehlin, (which put him quite close to that type of behavior) but it seemed most agreed there were many questions about the allegation.  I also recall some complained that he didn't pay women, but a woman or two who contributed spoke up for him too, so that came off a little iffy.  Seems like a stretch to throw his name in here.  

Stem, you have been very fair and even handed with this. But look at how you are discounting the women. This is exactly why the predators roam so freely. I believe the women, especially when there is more than one. Even Kate Kelly had an unpleasant exit. That is when the iffy stuff should stop. There is no defending Dehlin when it comes to not paying women, all salaries are public record. I don't know anyone who has burned as many bridges as Dehlin but I think he is so valuable to the exmo community because he is probably best positioned to do damage to the church that they throw the women under the bus. There is open disdain for him by more than one exmo/prog group. Yet not one of these groups has made an effort to bring him to account for his misogyny. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
10 minutes ago, juliann said:

Actually, she does have the qualifications. So as strange and unclear as this piece is, she isn't an amateur like the others. How that ultimately plays out remains to be seen. It is disappointing that your first reaction is to always, always defend the man. 

I have no doubt Anne is great at what she does.  But I can't help how messy her responses are.  She put her foot in her mouth about a dozen times (Ok an exaggeration, but when you see it once it feels like twice and if you see it again it feels like a half dozen times) with her attempts to define a true advocate, it seems to me.  And really, these two pieces are the only things I know her by.  

I think Smac raises interesting points in his response. And I won't comment about whether he always defends a man.  

Link to post
40 minutes ago, juliann said:

It is a discussion topic. It is about the notable difference in response coming from ex/prog/postMormons who are regular critics of the LDS church's response to child abuse. These same people have filled the internet with everything wrong with another group's approach while not applying one bit of it to one of their own.  They think themselves experts in what another group should do and how they should do it. They rip into anyone who fails their high bar and form virtual mobs to bring them down. They victim blame to the extreme when it happens to others, they brought it on themselves because...culture. They do know how to apply mercy, as we can see. But only for their own.  

I think one thread noting this extraordinary display isn't unremarkable. I would be encouraged by the sudden need to make us all one big community but it will only last until the next complaint against the church members they demonize. Most can't even pull off the one big community so don't look at us now without it turning into church bashing. I don't mean to include those who recognize this is not a problem of one group over another and/or have admitted the hypocrisy. There are admirable folk who have left the church, many. Unfortunately, they are always outshouted by the Mormon haters who are more invested in pinning abuse on the church than solving it. 

To my bold, it's usually those that are first out and in the anger phase, not all though. The anger worsens. But the posts I've read on various threads tell me that many ex-LDS are just as angry at Tom as the active LDS posters. Which was a relief after reading your opening post. Glad we can all agree that he did horrific things flat out. No if's, and's, or but's.

Now OTOH, should we condemn someone in a high leadership position that holds a lot of trust? As some of these ex-LDS posters have done that see someone in the news, for instance child porn/abuse while in their leadership position? We all know a couple or more. People are going to trust those in a leadership position of any faith or maybe more in the LDS faith, dunno. Just as Meadowchic has posted about. Or a community that is really close and trusting of each other.   

On another note, when I've gone to Sunstone Symposiums, twice now, I feel like it's a huge clique. And never felt a part of it. And thought JD was like their God or something. Same with Lindsay. But since I don't know them personally, maybe I should keep my big mouth shut. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  What are they?  

 

You couldn't be bothered to look before launching your attack?

Anne also holds a master’s in clinical psychology from Harvard University and a bachelor’s in human development and family studies from the University of Utah.

Quote

 

You're projecting here.  I don't view this as a Gender Wars issue.  If a man was purveying gossip about a woman, I would voice the same objections and concerns.

I don't know Tom Kimball, and feel no kinship or affinity with him at all.

I have, in the past, found plenty of fault with "then man."  John Dehlin.  Ryan McKnight.  Consig.  And with some women, too.  Kate Kelly, for example.

I don't take sides based on gender.  

 

 

Smac, your legal expertise and knowledge is exemplary, you have provided the most comprehensive analysis of legal issues in the exmo lawsuits that exist. I'm betting this is the only forum that almost immediately identified the problems with the McKenna nonsense and I sent dissenters here to understand it.  But you regularly are taken to the woodshed over your treatment of women here by active Mormon women. You do take sides on gender you are just blind to it. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...