Jump to content

Post Mormon reaction to child abusers from their own community


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, darkrats said:

but the term "other non-male" kind of jumped out at me, and I can't figure out what is meant here. Doesn't the term "female" cover all persons who are not male?

Assuming this is what stem means, he can correct me if I misread him, just providing the link for info to avoid possible derailment :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender

Link to post

This is a post shared to LHP's FB by Tom's niece. Looks like she says Lindsay held back from saying things that she had given permission to go into much more detail. 

Lindsay, I just wanted to say a few words on your wall rather then just in the comments of your posts regarding victims of Tom Kimball. For those who didn't see, I'm the daughter of Tom's oldest brother and I am one of the victims Lindsay has been advocating for. We will have a statement shortly but today I saw you attacked in another post from someone who wrote an entire article full of misinformation about you and your role in this and it really ticked me off. I have asked YOU for help in being a fair advocate for me. YOU have NOT asked me to be an advocate for you because you got this!! But I want to say to everyone that anything Lindsay has said in her posts about the victims was true and used by permission. In fact, she was so sensitive to our privacy that I had to ask her to go ahead and start naming me because I didn't want to be a secret any more. Lindsay has my entire witness statement, which was 17 pages long. She has the story. She's NOT saying WAY MORE then she's saying. She's saying way less then I've given her permission to say. Now, when you are accused of lying or seeking publicity or "likes", when you are doubted if the story is true, those people need to say Dayna Brown is a liar.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post

Whoever it is that is responding to horrors like this, in my opinion, is in sort of an existential dilemma that humans have not yet roundly solved, namely, that evildoing is not easy to spot. And there is no perfect rule to predict it. That is scary. And we rely on trust to function in human community and civilization. So it requires energy to watch out for hidden evil. It is difficult to manage uncertainty and to not have the comfort of certainty. I think that if we learn how to be better at managing uncertainty and coping in life without certainty, we will be  better at dealing with the cognitive dissonance, less likely to seek easy (often tribal) answers as the way through, and therefore better at opposing evil.

Edited by Meadowchik
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 10/18/2020 at 3:48 PM, Frater Lumen said:

Is Sunstone a place where kids congregate and are put in the path of predatory pedophiles? Not that I've seen. I don't see kids at Sunstone.

Yes, children at times (not many) do attend Sunstone.  I have never seen any at MHA or John Whitmer.

Link to post

Anne McMullin and a few others seems, in their accusations, do not realize, imo, that they are operating out of a female toxicity that accuses all of these pedophiliac interactions men.

While men do perform the larger and very major number of such behaviors, women as a group are not exempt.

The last thing we want is any in-Mo or an ex-Mo group demanding a group self awareness through a public Stalinist type self criticism and confession.

Link to post
37 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Anne McMullin and a few others seems, in their accusations, do not realize, imo, that they are operating out of a female toxicity that accuses all of these pedophiliac interactions men.

While men do perform the larger and very major number of such behaviors, women as a group are not exempt.

The last thing we want is any in-Mo or an ex-Mo group demanding a group self awareness through a public Stalinist type self criticism and confession.

And yet again....

Link to post
56 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Anne McMullin and a few others seems, in their accusations, do not realize, imo, that they are operating out of a female toxicity that accuses all of these pedophiliac interactions men.

Yeah...just how much did you read of her stuff before jumping to this conclusion of “female toxicity” and too stupid to realize it?

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5440550&itype=CMSID
 

Quote

It is impossible to discern "good" from "evil" just by looking or asking a few questions. And it is impossible to discern by applying common assumptions like "I know she's safe because she talks about how she would personally harm anyone who abuses children," or "I know he wouldn't hurt a child because he's such a good father to his own kids." 

Predators intentionally say and do things to make them seem like people we can trust. When people proclaim their own beneficence, see red flags rather than giving confidence.

I guess McMullin really means “he” here when she uses “she” being so toxicly female and all.  :mega_shok:

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3630432&itype=CMSID

Quote

Predators can be male or female, married or unmarried and can be childless or have children. Sometimes they work alone; sometimes they work together.

And more toxic femality as she defines predators as only male....oh wait...

 

So much easier to dismiss what a woman has to say as clueless “female toxicity” than listening to her, well done. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post

Calm needs to read all of McMullin's diatribes before expressing an unformed opinion. Anne has no trouble whiplashing other women (such as Lindsay Hansen Park) who im see believes are injuring the victims by protecting the pedos. imo, Lindsay did nothing of the sort.

 

Link to post
On 10/19/2020 at 12:49 PM, smac97 said:

Weird how Stem can critique McMullin without being publicly accused of sexism.  And you can too.

How and what one critiques matters. I don’t see why that would be considered weird. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
29 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Calm needs to read all of McMullin's diatribes before expressing an unformed opinion. Anne has no trouble whiplashing other women (such as Lindsay Hansen Park) who im see believes are injuring the victims by protecting the pedos. imo, Lindsay did nothing of the sort.

 

Your accusation was she operates from a female toxicity positions that views all predators as men.  Unless you are claiming what I quoted from your post doesn't actually mean that.

This is false as I demonstrated...so now you shift the goal post.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Your accusation was she operates from a female toxicity positions that views all predators as men.  Unless you are claiming what I quoted from your post doesn't actually mean that.

This is false as I demonstrated...so now you shift the goal post.

Quite the reverse.

Link to post
2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Calm needs to read all of McMullin's diatribes before expressing an unformed opinion. Anne has no trouble whiplashing other women (such as Lindsay Hansen Park) who im see believes are injuring the victims by protecting the pedos. imo, Lindsay did nothing of the sort.

 

I'm trying to make sense of this. A statement that one woman is lacking the training to be involving herself in a situation is a diatribe? Where is the diatribe in the two accounts of these women? Two women disagree and it is toxic? Sorry, but all I am seeing here is a difference of opinion between two people. Men do this all the time but when it happens to be two women it becomes a matter of toxicity, diatribe and whiplashing? What is next, cat fight? 

Why can't these two disagree without you going into an anti-woman rage?

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
On 10/19/2020 at 12:44 PM, Meadowchik said:

Yes, and I listened to the associated podcast today, and found myself frustrated. They had four speakers, one from Sunstone, and opened up the topic by mentioning LHP. Then they went through the list of ten things, taking turns to elaborate on different points with reasons and some examples. They do not dissect the reactions of LHP, nor do they lay out her specific objections. But, being aware of Anne's statements the last few days, I get the distinct impression that they are talking about LHP at different points without actually spelling it out. It sounds like it is possible that Park may have had the express permission to speak about the victims in her recent public statements, certainly the permission of at least some. It is unclear. And so I worry that McMullin's work might be diminished by the vague complaints about Park. It might be that she cannot get more specific due to the nature of of the situation being wrapped up in victims' stories, which she is trying to respect.

That said, I would re-word what SMAC said about Anne playing with fire. Both Anne McMullin and Lindsay Hansen Park are handling fire, fire that it seems like most people and most levels of society have great difficulty handling. My sense is that Park has done true advocate work for women in polygamous sects, and that her friendship with the groups themselves have facilitated that advocacy. It seems to me that Anne McMullin is painstakingly trying to call out problematic issues with Park without betraying abuse victims, and she is also calling out John Dehlin.

So I am inclined to try to support both Park and McMullin and their strengths, hoping that the support can help them be better at what they say they're trying to do. 

I like this summary. It is possible for women to have different methods, personalities, strengths and weaknesses without demonizing either because of it. 

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

I'm trying to make sense of this. A statement that one woman is lacking the training to be involving herself in a situation is a diatribe? Where is the diatribe in the two accounts of these women? Two women disagree and it is toxic? Sorry, but all I am seeing here is a difference of opinion between two people. Men do this all the time but when it happens to be two women it becomes a matter of toxicity, diatribe and whiplashing? What is next, cat fight? 

Why can't these two disagree without you going into an anti-woman rage?

 

 

Lindsay has not replied.  One person is demanding that everyone do it her way and is name shaming people who don't agree with her.  Won't happen.  That I point out the toxic nature of this one women is not an anti-woman rage.  That is not a logical conclusion.

Every person that was wounded by Tom's behavior may make her or his own decisions in resolving the offense and hurt.

The Mormon Studies group will work this out in the way that most of us, women and men, believe it should be worked, not at the demands of one person.

 

 

 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Lindsay has not replied.  One person is demanding that everyone do it her way and is name shaming people who don't agree with her.  Won't happen.  That I point out the toxic nature of this one women is not an anti-woman rage.  That is not a logical conclusion.

Every person that was wounded by Tom's behavior may make her or his own decisions in resolving the offense and hurt.

The Mormon Studies group will work this out in the way that most of us, women and men, believe it should be worked, not at the demands of one person.

 

You aren't even making sense. It was one woman's opinion, who does have the credentials to say it. I don't know what is going on with you but it has nothing to do with what we have actually seen. Get a grip maybe? I'd be interested in who you include in "The Mormon Studies" group.....

Link to post
1 hour ago, juliann said:

You aren't even making sense. It was one woman's opinion, who does have the credentials to say it. I don't know what is going on with you but it has nothing to do with what we have actually seen. Get a grip maybe? I'd be interested in who you include in "The Mormon Studies" group.....

You are not making sense.  Anne has the right to say what she wants, and people on other forums are calling her out for her attempt to make everybody follow her lead, with a very, very few supporting her.  Some of those who disagree with her have equal credentials. Who is involved in "Mormon Studies" is a grouping that is very, very diverse, and as such can tell Anne to follow her own counsel and to simmer down if the great majority do not.

Link to post
23 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

You are not making sense.  Anne has the right to say what she wants, and people on other forums are calling her out for her attempt to make everybody follow her lead, with a very, very few supporting her.  Some of those who disagree with her have equal credentials. Who is involved in "Mormon Studies" is a grouping that is very, very diverse, and as such can tell Anne to follow her own counsel and to simmer down if the great majority do not.

None of which has a thing to do with your anti-woman outburst here. Everybody agrees with me...somewhere else... is not a compelling defense BTW. And I'm trying to imagine Mormon Studies scholars I know even getting involved with this. So I remain interested in your definition of said group. 

Link to post
59 minutes ago, juliann said:

None of which has a thing to do with your anti-woman outburst here. Everybody agrees with me...somewhere else... is not a compelling defense BTW. And I'm trying to imagine Mormon Studies scholars I know even getting involved with this. So I remain interested in your definition of said group. 

The "anti-woman" out burst is in your head; I called out Anne McMullin, who does not represent all of womanhood.  I disagree that we have to heal our community her way, which includes an attack on men.  I called out Anne's unreasonable attack on all men.  If a few woman join here, I can critique them with being anti-woman.

You can believe that "everyone" agree with you, but that is not a compelling argument besides not being true.

You should read this various FB groups such as Mormon Hub and Mormon Historians for example.  You are way behind on this issue.

Link to post
29 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

  can tell Anne to follow her own counsel and to simmer down  

Getting too emotional and hysterical, is she? I'll bet Park is hearing some of that from men, too. From what I can deduce, the objection to her blog is that she called out a particular man because none of her advice on how to deal with predators even relates to these labels. Now call me an old fashioned MeToo backer, but that is the very reason that women have been afraid to come forward and why the Harvey Weinstein moment happened. Why is only the man being believed in this instance and the woman accuser attacked? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
58 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

The "anti-woman" out burst is in your head; I called out Anne McMullin, who does not represent all of womanhood.  I disagree that we have to heal our community her way, which includes an attack on men.  I called out Anne's unreasonable attack on all men.  If a few woman join here, I can critique them without being anti-woman.

You can believe that "everyone" agree with you, but that is not a compelling argument besides not being true.

You should read this various FB groups such as Mormon Hub and Mormon Historians for example.  You are way behind on this issue.

Corrected the post above.

Link to post
57 minutes ago, juliann said:

Getting too emotional and hysterical, is she? I'll bet Park is hearing some of that from men, too. From what I can deduce, the objection to her blog is that she called out a particular man because none of her advice on how to deal with predators even relates to these labels. Now call me an old fashioned MeToo backer, but that is the very reason that women have been afraid to come forward and why the Harvey Weinstein moment happened. Why is only the man being believed in this instance and the woman accuser attacked? 

Those words "emotional and hysterical" are yours, juliann. I know some of what Lindsay is hearing, and in that I have not seen anyone call either of her or Anne by those words.  Anne can argue with John Dehlin all she wants.  I have met Johns several times.  I am reading that he made unwanted advances towards several women and that he never was any threat at all towards kids, etc.  He should be called out if he crossed the line.  As should any woman who does the same.  I have not read of any woman crossing the line.  What we don't need is toxic attacks on men or women as groups.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

The "anti-woman" out burst is in your head; I called out Anne McMullin, who does not represent all of womanhood.  I disagree that we have to heal our community her way, which includes an attack on men.  I called out Anne's unreasonable attack on all men.  If a few woman join here, I can critique them with being anti-woman.

You can believe that "everyone" agree with you, but that is not a compelling argument besides not being true.

You should read this various FB groups such as Mormon Hub and Mormon Historians for example.  You are way behind on this issue.

This is the second time that someone has assumed what groups I belong to merely because I don't agree with them. Odd.  But....you are on this forum using closed groups, which are confidential, to support your anti-woman tirades. More bad form, James. Keep to what is public. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, JamesBYoung said:

  What we don't need is toxic attacks on men or women as groups.

Speaking of groups, I recommend you spend quality time in Exponent II and get educated in women's issues before you dig any more holes. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, juliann said:

Speaking of groups, I recommend you spend quality time in Exponent II and get educated in women's issues before you dig any more holes. 

I am not anti-woman.  That is merely your odd tirade about my correction of Anne McMullin's attacks on anyone, man or woman, who opposes her wanting to guide the process of grieving and reconstruction of the Mormon Studies community.

I counsel you to become aware that no one needs to follow your or Anne's counsel.  The community will follow its own guidance.

Link to post
37 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Those words "emotional and hysterical" are yours, juliann. I

The words "female toxicity" are yours.  

 

5 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Quite the reverse.

Then document as I have as I am not inclined to take your word given how you interpret posts here.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...