The MTC Abuse Story

[wenglund]

20 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Honest question.

What is the acceptable way to voice disagreement with some aspect of the mormon church?  Cultural, doctrinal, etc.,

 

Christ provides some very helpful guideline. Here are several off the top of my head:

1. The Golden Rule
2. Motes and Beams
3. He that is without sin...
4. The parable of the unforgiving servant

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think it really comes back to the idea of Chesterton’s fence.  

I had not heard of that analogy before, and needed to look it up (see HERE), and found it quite profound. I am grateful you shared it.

While reading up on it I also came across a corollary called the Cobra Effect, which illustrates the law of unintended negative consequences.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[lostinwater]

41 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think it really comes back to the idea of Chesterton’s fence.  Once you show that you understand what the fence is, why it’s there, and what purpose it serves, I’ll be more open to hearing about the negative side-effects the fence creates and how those side-effects can be mitigated in a way that still serves the fence’s original purpose—and at some point I may be open to seeing the fence modified or removed.

Precious, precious few would-be “reformers” of Mormonism seem to have given any thought to this whatsoever.  

Hmm - good points.  Makes sense - hard to do - but makes sense.  And @Just_A_Guy - not only is that a great analogy, but the Wikipedia article for it has all sorts of neat analogies linked from it.  The Cobra effect, Overton's Window, Streissand effect - and i've got YOU all to thank for them.   

41 minutes ago, person0 said:

Just a few possible ideas:

• Ask sincere questions rather than demand change.
• Determine if the disagreement is doctrinal or other.
• If doctrinal, represent your disagreement as opinion rather than fact, and either familiarize yourself with apologetics and teachings on the topic and/or be prepared to receive them from others.
• If not doctrinal, ignore it, or discuss it with those applicable.  Be prepared for information suggesting it actually is doctrinal but you may not have realized it at first.

Really, it will always depend entirely on the subject and depth of the disagreement.

i like that.  Sincere questions - not questions designed to blow their self worth into a billion pieces.  Just do what you do from a base of respect.

 

37 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Christ provides some very helpful guideline. Here are several off the top of my head:

1. The Golden Rule
2. Motes and Beams
3. He that is without sin...
4. The parable of the unforgiving servant

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

i've wondered on this one.  i'm no Jesus - that's for sure.  i don't know 100% when to be harsh, and when to be gentle.  He always knew.  Most anything i say as a sinner comes from a base of hypocrisy - unintended or otherwise.  i tend to err on the side of being gentle, and tell God and Jesus that They will need to take that person to someone who is more willing to whack off the parts that can't be saved.  It's a flawed solution, though.

And @wenglund - we both mentioned cobra effect from the linked article.  Neat one, right?  i didn't see your response until just now.  What would we do without wikipedia?   

[Midwest LDS]

I think we need to be careful about any rush to change a whole bunch of aspects of the church due to the actions of one evil individual. Just because one man abused his priesthood in a horrendous and disgusting way, does not mean that there is a church wide problem that needs a massive overhaul to fix. For example, the suggestion that our leaders need to stop interviewing our youth about sexual indiscretions or that they should do it in a more open format (ie a window in the office). Have we thought about the consequences of doing that? As someone who has needed to use the bishop to help with repentance, both as a teen and as an adult, I would not have talked to him if I did not know it was completely confidential and a window would have convinced me to never come in out of embarrassment even if it was just in the clerk's office. Confidentiality encourages people to talk who otherwise would not come in like me. In addition, do we really tell our young people sorry you are struggling with corrosive sin but you need to wait until your 18 to get it taken care of? I reject that idea. Let's not trip over ourselves trying to change something inherantly good just because of the actions of one evil and reprehensible individual.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Honest question.

What is the acceptable way to voice disagreement with some aspect of the mormon church?  Cultural, doctrinal, etc.,

Why post it all over you-twit-face-tube-er-book of course.

[The Folk Prophet]

36 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I think we need to be careful about any rush to change a whole bunch of aspects of the church due to the actions of one evil individual. Just because one man abused his priesthood in a horrendous and disgusting way, does not mean that there is a church wide problem that needs a massive overhaul to fix. For example, the suggestion that our leaders need to stop interviewing our youth about sexual indiscretions or that they should do it in a more open format (ie a window in the office). Have we thought about the consequences of doing that? As someone who has needed to use the bishop to help with repentance, both as a teen and as an adult, I would not have talked to him if I did not know it was completely confidential and a window would have convinced me to never come in out of embarrassment even if it was just in the clerk's office. Confidentiality encourages people to talk who otherwise would not come in like me. In addition, do we really tell our young people sorry you are struggling with corrosive sin but you need to wait until your 18 to get it taken care of? I reject that idea. Let's not trip over ourselves trying to change something inherantly good just because of the actions of one evil and reprehensible individual.

Note that the agenda that bishops should not be talking to youth or females about "sex" has pre-dated this latest scandal by many a year.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What Ms. Park (who, by the way, is one of the head honchos over at the "Feminist [anti-]Mormon Housewives" blog) 

I didn't know that since I don't read that blog.  How long have you been reading it?  LOL.  
 

49 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I think we need to be careful about any rush to change a whole bunch of aspects of the church due to the actions of one evil individual. Just because one man abused his priesthood in a horrendous and disgusting way, does not mean that there is a church wide problem that needs a massive overhaul to fix. 

I don't know what the answer is either.  But I can tell you it's more than one man.  I could post links to articles of Bishops (three), a Seminary Principle, Youth Leaders....all abusing their position. Suppose you are teaching the youth at church and they ask you, How do we reconcile that with the teachings that these men are called of God?  Joseph Bishop's leaders talked to him and he denied doing anything (though he know admits some of it.)  So he was guilty, where was the Gift of Discernment that we are taught about?  I'm not seeking to change anyone, but to understand how to move forward with this new, disturbing knowledge.  How do we explain this to them, and to ourselves.  That's the answer I'm looking for. 

[estradling75]

23 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I didn't know that since I don't read that blog.  How long have you been reading it?  LOL.  
 

I don't know what the answer is either.  But I can tell you it's more than one man.  I could post links to articles of Bishops (three), a Seminary Principle, Youth Leaders....all abusing their position. Suppose you are teaching the youth at church and they ask you, How do we reconcile that with the teachings that these men are called of God?  Joseph Bishop's leaders talked to him and he denied doing anything (though he know admits some of it.)  So he was guilty, where was the Gift of Discernment that we are taught about?  I'm not seeking to change anyone, but to understand how to move forward with this new, disturbing knowledge.  How do we explain this to them, and to ourselves.  That's the answer I'm looking for. 

Some times we see what we wish to see...  So I issue you a challenge.  For every case were you hear of a MTC president abusing his position find the name of 30 MTC Presidents that did not.  For every Bishop who does find 100 that did not, for teacher of youth find a thousand... etc...  I think you get the idea.  I guarantee that they exist, the only hard part is the simple fact that no one cares when they are not accused of being abusive.  You only hear about the cases that they mess up because that is what sells.

To me this simple fact means that there is not an organizational "problem."  But rather this is the problem the church has been trying to counter since its inception...  aka an individuals tendency to sin and not follow Christ.  And is a problem that can't not be eliminated and still retain Agency

[Midwest LDS]

36 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I didn't know that since I don't read that blog.  How long have you been reading it?  LOL.  
 

I don't know what the answer is either.  But I can tell you it's more than one man.  I could post links to articles of Bishops (three), a Seminary Principle, Youth Leaders....all abusing their position. Suppose you are teaching the youth at church and they ask you, How do we reconcile that with the teachings that these men are called of God?  Joseph Bishop's leaders talked to him and he denied doing anything (though he know admits some of it.)  So he was guilty, where was the Gift of Discernment that we are taught about?  I'm not seeking to change anyone, but to understand how to move forward with this new, disturbing knowledge.  How do we explain this to them, and to ourselves.  That's the answer I'm looking for. 

I understand what you are concerned about, and I did not mean to imply that no one else has ever violated his or her position in the church, but the vast majority of Bishops, Seminary teachers, and others are good upright people trying to do the best they can. I am all for more education about sexual violence, so the average person learns more about listening to abuse victims and providing aid and comfort. It makes me sad and horrified in equal measures to think of anyone misusing their positions in the church to harm the innocent, and I fully believe that when discovered they should be turned over to the police and punished as well as being excommunicated.  But I do not think that isolated cases of evil, which we will always have in an organization made up of flawed human beings, should destroy the institutions set up for the salvation of souls. The gift of discernment is not always given to the Lord's leaders. The only one who was always able to sense the thoughts of others was Jesus Christ. Sometimes the Lord, while not approving of sin, will allow someone the agency to betray their position (think Judas Isacariot or Baalam). I don't know why He does this, except that we live in a fallen world. But I do trust that this is Jesus Christ's church, and I trust that He will guide His prophets and apostles to solve any major problem faced by the church. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[Midwest LDS]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Note that the agenda that bishops should not be talking to youth or females about "sex" has pre-dated this latest scandal by many a year.

I did not know that, but it doesn't surprise me. I'm sure the adversary would love for us to get rid of our ecclesiastical protections for the youth, so he could run even more amok amongst them.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I didn't know that since I don't read that blog.  How long have you been reading it?  LOL.  
 

I don't know what the answer is either.  But I can tell you it's more than one man.  I could post links to articles of Bishops (three), a Seminary Principle, Youth Leaders....all abusing their position. Suppose you are teaching the youth at church and they ask you, How do we reconcile that with the teachings that these men are called of God?  Joseph Bishop's leaders talked to him and he denied doing anything (though he know admits some of it.)  So he was guilty, where was the Gift of Discernment that we are taught about?  I'm not seeking to change anyone, but to understand how to move forward with this new, disturbing knowledge.  How do we explain this to them, and to ourselves.  That's the answer I'm looking for. 

The gift of discernment, like all of God's gifts, is by God's will. Nothing has changed. We trust in God, that He is doing His will according to His perfect understanding. The fact that we don't understand doesn't mean God isn't running things according to the eternal perspective He has.

Edit: As is typical, @Just_A_Guy explains better here:

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I didn't know that since I don't read that blog.  How long have you been reading it?  LOL.  
 

I don't know what the answer is either.  But I can tell you it's more than one man.  I could post links to articles of Bishops (three), a Seminary Principle, Youth Leaders....all abusing their position. Suppose you are teaching the youth at church and they ask you, How do we reconcile that with the teachings that these men are called of God?  Joseph Bishop's leaders talked to him and he denied doing anything (though he know admits some of it.)  So he was guilty, where was the Gift of Discernment that we are taught about?  I'm not seeking to change anyone, but to understand how to move forward with this new, disturbing knowledge.  How do we explain this to them, and to ourselves.  That's the answer I'm looking for. 

A lot of these issues are things I’ve sort of put on a shelf for now (I posted about this under another topic yesterday); but I think in the end I’m going to have to adjust my paradigm some on what it means to be an “inspired leader”.  These are priesthood holders, not psychics . . . I trust them in setting policy for my ward and in giving me life-advice; but if my local police department is trying to crack a cold murder case my bishop isn’t the person I’d send them to.  And we know from Caiaphas’ pronouncement about the need for Jesus’ death, that inspired words can still come from woefully unrighteousness priesthood leaders.

As I understand it, ecclesiastical leaders aren’t supposed to administer church discipline unless there is either a confession or very strong third-party evidence.  Spiritual manifestations—even if they come—are apparently not enough to trump a member’s due-process rights.  (Can you imagine what would have happened if Kate Kelley’s or John Dehlin’s bishops had simply said “Sister/Brother, the Spirit tells me you need some time outside of the Church and that whether you’ll admit it or not, you know very well why”?)  The Church seems to implicitly recognize that “discernment” doesn’t usually extend to unmasking secret sinners.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Fether]

8 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Honest question.

What is the acceptable way to voice disagreement with some aspect of the mormon church?  Cultural, doctrinal, etc.,

Maybe there isn't a way.  Maybe anyone who says the leadership/doctrine/culture is wrong needs to shut up, decide to accept it, or leave.  i could never find a way that just didn't make everyone fighting mad.  

And that's fine.  There's nothing in any bill of rights that says i have a right to expect to be able to tell someone else they are wrong or messed up and have them listen - especially when my participation with them is voluntary.

In my quieter moments, i think i see that there is enough people forgotten in the shadows to keep an army of people more capable than myself busy.  Just help patch up the people that didn't click with the system and got hurt.  And as you here all know, i hardly consistently follow this advice myself.

But i acknowledge the need for the Martin Luther types in any system.  The ones the system swears are not needed and yet when you look back on it, say 'Wow, i'm sure glad that person whose actions we hated said or did what they did'.  And for them - the ones wiser than myself - how should they proceed?  Or should they just accept that things are not going to change and try and get over it?  

i hope you all take this in the spirit in which it is written.  It's just a question i would like to hear your thoughts on.  

 

The church of God that has a prophet called by God should not need Martin Luthers or any kind of reformer. If change is going to come in the church, it isn’t going to be some activist calling for change, it’s going to be from the prophet.

the failure is not among the strong and righteous leadership of the church, the failure is in weak sections of the church. And the church leadership is striving non-stop to get everyone else where they are. Where they can be advocates for truth and righteousness.

Our leaders are not ignorant self righteous people that bought their way to the top, they are people of great charity. Rather than trying to find ways to reform the church, we ought to decide how to live the gospel more closely.

[Guest MormonGator]

28 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 but if my local police department is trying to crack a cold murder case my bishop isn’t the person I’d send them to.  

Sorry to joke around about a very serious subject, but a cold case cracking bishop would make a great tv series. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by MormonGator

[Fether]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Sorry to joke around about a very serious subject, but a cold case cracking bishop would make a great tv series. 

Actually a pretty good movie

Edited March 26, 2018 by Fether

[Just_A_Guy]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Sorry to joke around about a very serious subject, but a cold case cracking bishop would make a great tv series. 

Also:  Father Brown.

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Honest question.

What is the acceptable way to voice disagreement with some aspect of the mormon church?  Cultural, doctrinal, etc.,

 

1.)  Voice such disagreement to God in prayer and seek to understand HIS will on the matter.

2.)  If God's will is not clear or if what you believe is His will goes against the Church teachings/actions, seek counsel from the priesthood leader of the home (husband, father, etc.).  If that doesn't reconcile God's will with the Church on the matter, talk to your visiting teachers or home teachers. If that doesn't satisfy, go talk to either your RS leadership or EQ  or HP Leadership, whoever has stewardship over you.  If you still feel God's will is not being made to come to pass, then go talk to the Bishop... then Stake President... then GA.  If that still is not satisfactory, go write a letter to the Apostles and the Prophet.

3.)  If after you receive counsel from the words of the Prophet you still believe that the church is not following God's will on the matter, then go back to #1 - make sure it is really God's will and not just your misunderstanding of God's will.  Repeat the whole cycle as you feel necessary.

That's the way the House is Ordered.

Edited March 26, 2018 by anatess2

[person0]

14 minutes ago, Fether said:

Actually a pretty good movie

Tisk. Tisk. Tisk.  This was the click-bait that got me to read your post:

  Shame on you! 

[Guest]

STATEMENT: I'm sorry to LP for quoting her post.  Remember that LP was only quoting someone else.  So, this is not an attack on LP.  I consider her a friend and I in no way mean to diminish her for posting this or by my posting a rebuttal to it.

She (Lindsay Park) is a master of rhetoric and sophistry.  Did anyone else catch the subtle blade(s)?  I'll point out what I'm talking about.

14 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This was a public post by LIndsay Hansen Park...

Yes, she's a feminist.  A proud feminist who is ALSO a faithful Saint.  Nothing wrong with that on its face.  But it does often mean that one will jump to the conclusion that the woman is always the victim and the man is always the aggressor.  So, I wonder if she has even considered that the woman may be wrong in this case.  I don't know.  But I'm asking.

Quote

This post is about how we are all complicit in letting abuse thrive in our faith community.

OK, so, yes, she is automatically coming from the ASSUMPTION that there is this "widespread" problem in our community.  I don't know if there is.  But I just calculated my own experience in all the wards I've LIVED in -- not just the ones I visited.  I see a rate of about 1/1700 people.  Round number.  Anecdotal.  But I don't know of any real statistics on it.

Quote

This #MTCabuse scandal, as horrific as it is, has brought a lot of people together on my wall lately. A large portion of former Mormons follow my page and a large portion of current Mormons follow my page. Because of this, I have a unique audience and unique discussions.

If she says so.  But I don't see anything of what they've said. She's simply establishing her position as an authority.  Nothing more.

Quote

I have been privy to some behind-the-scenes details of this story and have been discussing a lot on my wall. I can tell you there is more to come on this story.

Really?  Like what?  Oh, that's right, she hasn't said anything.  She's teasing something as if it's big.  But is it?  Let's see what she posts and we'll see if it stands up to scrutiny.  I hope it wasn't the "big reveal" of the previous Mormonleaks page.  That was a big nothing-burger.

Quote

Today I want to talk to Mormons and Exmormons.

OK, so now here's the meat of the story.  But listen to what she's saying to Mormons and what she's saying to Exmormons.  "Mormons have this problem".  Exmormons are hoping people come over to their side because of this issue.  Look at it.  That's what she ends up saying.

Quote

This story is hard. It is challenging for so many reasons. It's hard for everyone that has connections to Mormons. In some ways, I think it is the most hard for faithful Mormons. 

Again, she's starting with an assumption. She still hasn't said any facts about this case.

Quote

As a researcher,

Establishing a position of authority.  Research what?  Isn't she a realtor?  Or is that someone else?  I don't know.

Quote

the context of that anxiety makes sense to me. Mormons are a people who have two centuries of persecution that colors the weight that we give outside perception. Two centuries of having to stick together and be loyal above all else. Culturally, we've become a people where we strive to show ourselves in the best light. Oftentimes we are terrified to do or say anything that makes our community look bad. These cultural attitudes are deeply-dyed.

This isn't because Mormons are dishonest or lying. It's rooted in our survival after two centuries of distrust from outsiders and it's also morphed into the idea that if we make our church look bad, no one will convert. That sounds trite, but the need to push conversion is also a strong, benevolent belief.

Tries to show that she's sympathetic to other Mormons who aren't seeing the light as she does.  Show sympathy so the barb that comes is taken more easily.

Quote

With that background, I have been able to witness the tone of conversations and I've been impressed and touched by how many faithful Mormons have expressed concern over the abuse stories and put aside their need to protect the institution and do the right thing.

Again, assuming.  And "how may"?  Has she kept statistics?  Is this confirmation bias? I don't know.  This is all rhetoric. Where are the facts and logic?  In the end she's still stating that there is a problem with no logic or facts to back it up.

Is there a problem?  There are always problems.  But if you're going to make the claim it is an institutional or systemic problem, you need more data points to back up such a claim.  And so far, I haven't seen them.  If people have such data, I'd love to go over them and listen.

Quote

ExMormons, or rather those that no longer attend or subscribe to Mormon belief, also struggle with stories like this. One of the biggest issues in our community is how the faithful and the non-faithful interact. It has been an issue that has long-since plagued our people.

"Also struggle"?  How?  They relish in stories like this.  Even before all the facts have come out, they're simply accepting this and ignoring the principle of confirmation bias.  And notice the bold. The antecedent for "It" should be taken to mean the interaction of the faithful and non-faithful.  But couched in this statement and the issue at hand, she's coupling it with the overall issue.  i.e. "it" is automatically considered to be sexual abuse in the LDS community.

Quote

It is hard to explain to outsiders, but credibility and currency in our community happens in proximity to faith and power. If you are considered faithful or in a position of power, your voice carries weight. If you are not faithful, you are not trustworthy, you lose your credibility. I could write for days on this, but the gist is that if you are neither in a church position of leadership and do not have faith, you are not respected in the community. You will not be listened to in the community, and you will be ignored and dismissed as anti-mormon or a critic of the church. 

The credibility of faithful I can see.  A large part of "being faithful" is one who is honest and sticks to commitments they've made.  I don't think "belief" or "religiousness" is part of what I see as the guage of "credibility".  I know many inactive people who are good enough people.  But they simply never believed some things.  I've got nothing against them.  I even trust many of them -- when it comes to non-church related stuff.  But it only stands to reason that if you have a negative outlook on the Church, your perspective is going to be colored by that.  Why would it NOT affect your credibility IN THAT CONTEXT?

Quote

I want you to think about how these attitudes directly contribute to protecting abuse. It sets up a precedent that if you are indeed being victimized, talking about it won't sound the alarm, rather it will cause your family, friends, and community to distrust you. Mormons (faithful and ex alike) aren't really good at parsing out critiques vs. attacks. 

Pure sophistry.

Quote

If we want the Mormon community to be safer against abuse, THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE SOLVED. This issue, the inability to trust someone based on their faith, is a scourge and directly impacts how we protect abusers.

I agree any violation should be addressed.  But everything else here?  Huh???

Quote

Why does it matter now? Because thousands and thousands of Mormons have been wounded by actions like that of the accused in the MTC story. Let me be clear, this is not the only reason people stop participating in Mormonism, but it does speak to why people "leave." 

If this has happened to a member of the faith by a person in authority in the Church, then the abuser should be excommunicated with prejudice and I have no problem with the victim being so disaffected that they leave the Church.  And even Changed has some complaints that I can empathize with.  So, if things really are as bad as she's describing, I really don't blame her for leaving.  I'd, of course, HOPE that she and many others in her situation would consider a different route.  But I wouldn't think she's evil because she might choose to leave.

But again, the rhetoric here is that this is systemic.  Where's the proof?

Quote

When you find out something is wrong in your community, you try to speak to someone about it, are usually met with silence and dismissal, anger, or your own character is attacked. Again, this is rooted in a historical precedent, but it doesn't make it better when you experience it.

I see this happen in the US at large.  I don't see this as being any different in the Church.  Address it?  Sure.  Make sure people are aware of it?  Sure.  But to put a spotlight on it as a product of the LDS community specifically and is somehow worse than any other community?  I just don't see it.

Quote

I've been on both sides of the fence. I've reacted and participated in both sides of the struggle. ...

Remember that feeling when we all sat together in the pews to take the sacrament? Let's keep that spirit of unity in our hearts and let our empathy be our communion together."

Much of the same techniques repeated here.  And many of the same assumptions and appeals to facts unproven.  She has a final call for unity.  But unity under what banner?  She's saying unite under the banner of the alleged victim against the allege abuser.  But is it the right banner?  I don't know yet.

I don't want to unite under a banner of emotion, prejudice, accusation, and assumption.  I want to unite under the truth.  And if the truth is that the MTC pres was guilty, then burn him to hell.  If not, then burn the accuser to hell.  Show me the truth and I'll gladly fall under that banner whichever it may be.  But don't just throw out a bunch of accusations and declarations of unsubstantiated assumptions and hope I'll be swayed to your banner of abandoning the search for truth.  

I want the truth.  And, yes, I CAN handle the truth!  Whichever side that may reveal itself to be.  Notice that NONE of what I said here assumes the woman is lying in this case.  I don't know.  This was all about the fact that Sis Park's post was entirely based on the assumptions:

1) The woman is right and the man is evil.

2) This is a systemic problem.

I DON'T KNOW.  But I want some proof or data to corroborate either assumption before I jump on any bandwagon.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Guest

[Traveler]

In general, there is a problem of what to do with sinners as well as how to comfort the afflicted.   From my life experience – I am convinced that we should all help and support the sinner to repent as well as comfort those that are afflicted.  What seem to be worthless; is trying to get someone to repent that is determined not to repent and trying to comfort someone that has been afflicted that is more concerned with revenge than being comforted.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Nothing wrong with that on its face. 

[lostinwater]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

The church of God that has a prophet called by God should not need Martin Luthers or any kind of reformer. If change is going to come in the church, it isn’t going to be some activist calling for change, it’s going to be from the prophet.

the failure is not among the strong and righteous leadership of the church, the failure is in weak sections of the church. And the church leadership is striving non-stop to get everyone else where they are. Where they can be advocates for truth and righteousness.

Our leaders are not ignorant self righteous people that bought their way to the top, they are people of great charity. Rather than trying to find ways to reform the church, we ought to decide how to live the gospel more closely.

Thank-you! 

i like what you say about how most people, the most influential work they can do is on a personal level.  It's far less glamorous - but probably more needed.

That said.

1.  i am glad that Martin Luther did not believe this.

2.  i think most people who try to reform (anything - but especially religion) are nothing like Martin Luther

[wenglund]

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't know what the answer is either.  But I can tell you it's more than one man.  I could post links to articles of Bishops (three), a Seminary Principle, Youth Leaders....all abusing their position. Suppose you are teaching the youth at church and they ask you, How do we reconcile that with the teachings that these men are called of God?  Joseph Bishop's leaders talked to him and he denied doing anything (though he know admits some of it.)  So he was guilty, where was the Gift of Discernment that we are taught about?  I'm not seeking to change anyone, but to understand how to move forward with this new, disturbing knowledge.  How do we explain this to them, and to ourselves.  That's the answer I'm looking for. 

If it is of any help, the way I explain it to myself is, first, put it in perspective: we are talking about a handful of cases out of a membership of tens of millions. And, while even one case is one too many, there is only so much that can be done within a human populated organization and community, including the most inspired, to prevent abuse from happening, and the leaders of the Church, including Christ at the top,  are already doing what they can, and continuing to do better.

Second, understand that evil has been finding its way into even the very best places on earth since Satan found his way into the Garden. And, with as much as we may wish otherwise, and strive to to have it otherwise, recognize that it is an inevitable part of earthly existence, and not necessarily a flaw of organizations or even cultures.  The issue, then, isn't what may be done to prevent the very rare exceptions from happening (since they will happen regardless--see the best practices principle of Six Sigma), but how we will personally respond when it invariably happens--understanding that we have a Savior with the power to heal the afflicted and make all things right in the end.  Railing against very decent organizations, or even animating drama on blogs and social media, tends to be a part of the problem rather than the solution.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[NightSG]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

OK, so, yes, she is automatically coming from the ASSUMPTION that there is this "widespread" problem in our community.  I don't know if there is.  But I just calculated my own experience in all the wards I've LIVED in -- not just the ones I visited.  I see a rate of about 1/1700 people.  Round number.  Anecdotal.  But I don't know of any real statistics on it.

What proportion of public school students have been victims of school shootings?  If the outrage over this were proportional, SLC would be smoking rubble by now.

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Really?  Like what?  Oh, that's right, she hasn't said anything.  She's teasing something as if it's big.  But is it?  Let's see what she posts and we'll see if it stands up to scrutiny.  I hope it wasn't the "big reveal" of the previous Mormonleaks page.  That was a big nothing-burger.

Quite possible there's some legal action in the works and so certain details shouldn't be revealed until they come out in public record.

[Just_A_Guy]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900013999/lds-first-presidency-letter-directs-leaders-to-review-teach-policies-on-preventing-responding-to-sex-abuse.html