Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu

[Chum]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

If he was going clockwise he might of been a predator, your correct, but if he was circling her car going counter clockwise, he might of been pretending to be Jeff Gordon. 

Not slamming you here but

I can't get past the part where bicycle-stalker might not even be the last risky guy she has to deal with (that day) - and that the next day she got to do it all over again.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Here is a better response. Every one I know is not a gay man. Just make my point clear given the vitriol being slung around by a poster or two. 

 

I added some more to my post, which you likely hadn’t seen when you made this response. 

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So I did actually see the post I guess, I just interpreted it like you did and not like California Boy and Meadowchik did. 

I am not going to address immediately whether anyone was making the argument in this thread that mgy is debating...may go check that later, though I do think it very important if bringing in an argument made elsewhere one is clear that is what one is doing so no one assumes anyone in the thread is being accused of using that reasoning. 

——

So stripping the argument of bias as much as possible by using generic terms, how about phrasing it as:

People generally agree there are appropriate and inappropriate sexual desires.  If someone justifies the expression of their own sexual desires by claiming they are god given (mgy’s phrasing—as it is not an actual quote of someone else in the thread according to the search function—being “God would never create a person with sexual desires He expected them to repress”), does this imply all sexual desires are God given or are there some that do not come from God and

Two directions this argument can go depending on whether answered yes, all sexual desires come from God or no, there are sexual desires that are not god given.  If you don’t want to involve God, you should feel free to substitute “naturally occurring”, “inherent”, or “born that way” or something else.

1) if so, how does one identify nonGod given/noninherent  sexual desires?

There is another part in my head to this argument if the “how” amounts to bias based on beliefs of what is moral and immoral.  Hopefully I will recall it if someone uses that reasoning, lol. 
 

2) if there is agreement that any sexual desire is God given/inherent and therefore meant to be expressed, what does that mean for expression of sexual desires that are seen as inappropriate by society?

PS:  if my phrasing is offensive, please point out and provide an alternative, so I and others if they also desire can learn how to phrase things in appropriate ways. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, secondclasscitizen said:

the windows is primarily abuse prevention and everyone knows it.  

Everyone knows that it’s primarily abuse prevention? I don’t think you can competently make that claim. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Everyone knows that it’s primarily abuse prevention? I don’t think you can competently make that claim. 

It seems like a lot of those buildings with windows were built before 'abuse prevention' during primary was on the radar.  But then again, I don't think i've ever met in a building that had windows in the doors so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.  

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Chum said:

Not slamming you here but

I can't get past the part where bicycle-stalker might not even be the last risky guy she has to deal with (that day) - and that the next day she got to do it all over again.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Because once you say that there is "nothing" similar between two things - any two things - my brain immediately jumps into the process of trying to find an exception; it's one of my few talents, much to the chagrin of many a Sunday school teacher's object lesson. And once I've thought of an exception it's almost impossible for me to keep my mouth shut (which is one of my many faults).

Now, with this particular subject I understand that, even though I may only mean to relay the exception, any comment to that effect is going to be perceived as supporting the original objectionable comparison (regardless of my intent to merely rebut the claim of absolute dissimilarity), and then the discussion is going to spiral out of control faster than I can type.

Plus, I'm likely going to personalize the claim about "bigotry" and the desire to "demonize" gay marriages as being the only reasons to justify the notion that gay marriage isn't absolutely dissimilar to some other practice. I mean, who are you to call me a bigot when you are the one who threw down the challenge to find something similar? I'm just answering what I believe to be a technically inaccurate claim. If you don't like it, well, then (to borrow a phrase) don't ask and I won't tell.

 

I am the same way.  

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems like a lot of those buildings with windows were built before 'abuse prevention' during primary was on the radar.  But then again, I don't think i've ever met in a building that had windows in the doors so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.  

I have only been in two in my memory and both of them were when I was a kid in the 60s.

They just finished renovating an older church nearby. If I get mobile and remember, I may stop by to see if windows were installed. 
 

I do assume that abuse prevention is likely the biggest reason the Church is currently willing to spend extra money on windows in the doors...though would like to know where it is happening as I haven’t seen it myself. I wonder if money was the reason they lacked them where they didn’t have them before the 90s or later or if there was another reason such as passerbys distracting kids or soundproofing. 
 

My son has been in a couple of new chapels in recent years as they live in a developing area and have split their ward on average about one a year it seems like for the past ten. I will have to see if those have windows in classes. 
 

edited:  my son and wife say they have been in a number that have windows, including their current one, so looks like I have just lucked out not attending ones that do...and don’t visit other wards as much as I used to.  My son’s family as well as my trio live in Utah Valley, which has I am betting the highest rate of chapel building in the world.  They don’t believe windows in classroom are required though for new buildings. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Team teaching....while I believe the policy is now church wide for the purpose of abuse prevention, I have been in several wards over the decades that were using team teaching as a way to make it easier on the teachers and help with crowd control of difficult classes.  My husband likes the two person requirement because it means he only has to prepare the lesson every other week. 

[JustAnAustralian]

Back to the original topic for a moment.

It's interesting that this slipped under the radar for so long. The suit was filed on the 29th March,  A few news sites got it around that time (including the Inside Higher Ed article in the initial post), but the Salt Lake Tribune didn't do anything until 30th May.

 

There's been a lot of legal stuff happening with the case since it was filed too https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/39405226/Hunter_et_al_v_US_Department_of_Education_et_al

Summons, time extensions, corporate disclosure statements, a whole bunch of Pro Hac Vice appearance requests. Unfortunately it doesn't look like courtlistener is posting documents for this case.

 

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

Not slamming you here but

I can't get past the part where bicycle-stalker might not even be the last risky guy she has to deal with (that day) - and that the next day she got to do it all over again.

Oh geez, it was a joke man, atleast I find myself funny, I guess that's all that really matters. 

 

   

 

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Afghanistan?? Ha no one has heard of man love Thursday lol. Well really it’s more like the men seek out young men who don’t shave yet to have carnal relations with. They totally are into gay sex there but it really is molestation since they like the boys who don’t shave. 10-14 yrs old 

TMI

[kllindley]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

While some may have suggested this wouldn’t happen, many of us who are pro-LGBT equality have been saying this is exactly what would happen, just as it happened with race.

It would be false to imply those that are pro-LGBT equality unanimously claimed this would never happen. 

I absolutely acknowledge that. That is why my comment said nothing about all pro-LGBT individuals. I said it had happened multiple times.

It would be equally false to imply that expressions of concern about religious freedom have never been dismissed as slippery slope hysterics on this board.  

[Chum]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Oh geez, it was a joke man, atleast I find myself funny, I guess that's all that really matters.

I can generally pull a joke out of about anything but that particular event, that was like the one place where a joke won't fit.

It's because guys entire history is blowing off the problems that women, constantly, have to live with.

We need to do better but it feels like almost none of us care.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Chum

[secondclasscitizen]

deleted .

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[secondclasscitizen]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Everyone knows that it’s primarily abuse prevention? I don’t think you can competently make that claim. 

I’m your huckleberry.  🍓

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2016/4/28/20587508/lds-church-outlines-how-it-prevents-child-sexual-abuse-makes-donation

“Since 2006, the church has constructed all new chapels and meetinghouses with hallway windows in every classroom door so parents and others can see inside. The church is retrofitting its older buildings.

Other steps the church has taken to prevent child abuse, as outlined in Thursday's statement, include requiring two adult leaders for every youth activity and for Primary classes taught by men.”

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by secondclasscitizen
Added second paragraph.

[secondclasscitizen]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

— unless you meant to tell us that every “Mormon” child monster you know still holds a temple recommend. 

Ok i get your point and yea you are right. Let me be a bit more clear:

Most molest cases that come out of the church the suspect is a married straight male who holds the priesthood, is an elder or high priest and likely has a temple recommend. I’d think that would be so if he is holding a calling teaching members of the church- especially little boys and girls. 
 

if the suspect isn’t a recommend holder they are very surely married, straight and a priesthood holder though. Point stands it isn’t a bunch of gay guys in our wards doing this stuff. There have been several bishops zapped for it lately too.

So you are right, but you are just being extra bit picky with a detail that does not invalidate the point of my statement.

 Once caught I’m sure they lose their recommend if they had one and I’m betting most do. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Most molest cases that come out of the church the suspect is a married straight male who holds the priesthood, is an elder or high priest and likely has a temple recommend. I’

Most molestors are family members of the victims, so your demographic claims are probably mostly accurate. 
 

The temple recommend is up in the air if a confession is made...depending on the details of what was done and if repented.  
 

When there are different accusations flying around, hopefully leaders will contact SL and find out full details on what can be done, what can be pushed hard if needed, what must be done and how much local leaders are limited, if at all, by the choices of those involved, including parents wanting justice but also to protect their children and predators who might not want to turn themselves in or even admit and victims who are not yet ready to deal with their pain in public. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Calm

[AtlanticMike]

9 hours ago, Chum said:

I can generally pull a joke out of about anything but that particular event, that was like the one place where a joke won't fit.

It's because guys entire history is blowing off the problems that women, constantly, have to live with.

We need to do better but it feels like almost none of us care.

Oh geez, I was going to leave this one alone Chum but, oh well. First what you did for that lady is awesome, you probably made her feel safe while loading her car, your a true gentleman. 

   And here's the BUT, and my 2 cents because I hire a lot of guys who probably have at one point in their life been the guy on the bicycle possibly thinking about robbing the lady so he can get his next fix. First, in the mind of the guy on the bicycle, you being 50 yards away, he doesn't give one thought of what you're doing there. 50 yards is an eternity for you or anyone else to get to that lady. He can stab her  and grab her purse and get back on his bike before you're 1/2 way there.  Next time if someone is in trouble, truly in trouble and the hair is standing up on the back of your neck, don't worry about what the lady thinks,  walk over to her and say, this guy is a creep and I think he's targeting you, I'm going to stand right beside you until your done. If your sincere, she'll be extremely happy you're there. Why do I say that, because there's safety in numbers, and the main thing you did is you penetrated the circle he was making while on his bike by walking over to her. You penetrating the circle he was making shows to him, you're willing to fight, in his mind , that's all that matters.

    Anyways, I still like what you did, I agree a lot of men these days wouldn't do anything and the number who will is getting smaller and smaller. People are afraid they're going to do something wrong, or end up on YouTube and look like a fool, so they just don't worry about a situation like you described, it's a damn shame isn't?

Edited June 3, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

don't worry about what the lady thinks, 

Don’t treat her like a child or an object who you get to be the hero saving her sweet little airless head that is incapable of understanding the big bad like you the strong, kind man does. 
 

Try explaining the situation first far enough away that you can’t grab her and give her a choice.  Plus a lot of women carry these days. You playing at being hero could get a gun pointed at you, not the guy in the bike. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Calm

[gopher]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe you should make this a temple recommend holding exclusive site. That way you would be sure to never experience a different point of view.  

Huh?  I guess this was supposed to be a sick burn?  I just provided a different point of view that you completely dismissed.  But I've always enjoyed the hyperbole in your posts.

I was just pointing out that we all can be offended if we choose.  Members of the church are at a disadvantage since they are expected to be nice, even though this site allows the opportunity to be anonymous so it can get dicey at times.

I'm still entertained by all the exmos that rush into these threads to lecture members of the church, even though I have sympathy for any pain you have experienced.

 

[gopher]

16 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Not all.

Yeah, sorry, didn't have you in mind.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Don’t treat her like a child or an object who you get to be the hero saving her sweet little airless head that is incapable of understanding the big bad like you the strong, kind man does. 
 

Try explaining the situation first far enough away that you can’t grab her and give her a choice.  Plus a lot of women carry these days. You playing at being hero could get a gun pointed at you, not the guy in the bike. 

Some years ago I was teaching at a local university.  I usually started my day very early, at 6:00 a.m.  I had to park my car and walk a fair distance through several inter-connected buildings to get to my office.

One such morning I found myself walking toward my office about 50 feet behind a young woman.  At that time of day there was nobody else around.  I shortly realized that I was making her nervous.  I had not said or done anything, and I had not closed the gap between us, but she looked back at me a few times in quick succession, and she looked nervous.  

So I called to her and said "Hey, my name is Spencer Macdonald.  I teach here and am headed to my office in ___________ building.  It looks like we are headed in the same direction.  I can see that I am making you nervous.  I am sorry about that.  I will stop for a few minutes and let you get to wherever you are going.  Sound good?"  She smiled, nodded and said "Yes, thanks," and continued on her way.  She gave off a "sigh of relief" vibe in doing so.  I waited about five minutes and then continued toward my office.

In retrospect, I suppose I did the right thing.  I gave her my name (and that I teach, and that I was headed to my office) because the lawyer in me thought that this would give her some measure of security.  I stopped and gave her several minutes to get to her destination.  I could see that this happenstance, of her being all alone early in the morning with a stranger walking (50 feet) behind her, was putting her on edge.  I had not planned any of this, and I certainly was no threat to her, but she did not know that.  So I felt it best to, as you put it, "give her a choice."  I don't blame the young woman for feeling a bit nervous, even though she was in no actual danger from me.  The confluence of events (early morning, nobody around, a stranger walking behind her) was what it was.  I mitigated the situation by communicating with her and then giving her a few minutes to get to her destination.  Problem solved.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 3, 2021 by smac97

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I don’t know of any pro-LGBT advocates who ever suggested that sexual orientation would not closely follow the way that racial equality unfolded over time, as KLindley’s post implied. In fact, as far as the explicit topic of this thread is concerned, this is EXACTLY what pro-LGBT advocates have suggested would happen all along, and that it absolutely WOULD parallel and mirror anti-discrimination laws.

Oh, I am fully aware of what pro-LGBT advocates wanted to see unfold over time, but that doesn't change the fact that in the past they routinely downplayed those ultimate goals out of political expediency.

I witnessed such behavior myself on multiple occasions back when the SSM debates were going on.

I would liken their behavior back then to gun control advocates now who focus the discussion on banning one particular kind of firearm while at the same time trying to minimize any discussion relating to their ultimate goals for much broader restrictions on firearms in general.

I understand why this is done, of course: because discussion of the latter could erode support for the former.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are intentionally (understandably, I might add) not focusing on what they want to see unfold over time, just as pro-LGBT advocates did with their ultimate cause back when SSM was being actively debated.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Ok i get your point and yea you are right. Let me be a bit more clear:

Most molest cases that come out of the church the suspect is a married straight male who holds the priesthood, is an elder or high priest and likely has a temple recommend. I’d think that would be so if he is holding a calling teaching members of the church- especially little boys and girls. 
 

if the suspect isn’t a recommend holder they are very surely married, straight and a priesthood holder though. Point stands it isn’t a bunch of gay guys in our wards doing this stuff. There have been several bishops zapped for it lately too.

So you are right, but you are just being extra bit picky with a detail that does not invalidate the point of my statement.

 Once caught I’m sure they lose their recommend if they had one and I’m betting most do. 

It now appears that in your haste to make your point, you were careless in the wording of your post. I don’t think anyone seriously disputes that there are active members of the Church who fall short of their covenants, often in egregious ways relating to sexual sin. But your post seemed to imply that pedophilia is tolerated in the Church when, it is now clear, you knew very well that is not the case. 
 

That’s why I pushed back.