How do you define Mormonism?

[Angel]

My Mum would not describe herself as a slave.

When I was TBM I wouldn't have described myself as a slave either. If you don't move, you can't feel the chains.

It's not until you get that phone call from the detective... and then try to get help from those in the church.... that you realize... the church doesn't protect kids, it protects itself... that it isn't led by god, that "elevation" isn't God, that no one is called by god, that no one is led by god... that you realize how women are actually viewed by LDS men....

It's all herd instincts, nothing more.

[alas]

When I was TBm….well, maybe I should say when I was a practicing Mormon who was involved in the community with all that heritage that Mayan is proud of, I never felt like a slave except for when I was Relief Society President. Then I sure as hell felt like I was slave to the bishopric. People have told me he wasn’t a good bishop, even my husband who served under that same guy as first counselor/fill in for an out of town bishop. The guy was literally such a dufus that people waited till he was out of town for two weeks to decide then needed to confess to adultery. Then, they couldn’t wait till the bishop came home to talk to the bishop, but please let me confess now to Brother alas. And then as they struggled with the repentance process, they would wait till bishop was gone again so they could discuss their struggles and repentance with brother alas. It wasn’t a single situation or single person, but happened 6-10 times. No, it just can’t wait till bishop is back. I would rather talk to bro alas now. Then it turns out to be some problem they could have taken to bishop last week when bishop was in town. But bishop was in some military job where he was out of town 50% of the time, so everyone knew they could wait a week or two and talk to a compassionate guy instead of a jerk.

But back to feeling like a slave to the bishopric. I came from a ward where I was respected as primary President to a ward where there was no ward counsel, at all. Well, the RSP is supposed to meet regularly with the bishop to discuss things, before they go to PEC. That never happened either. Not once. We would have welfare meeting, where the king would tell his slave what they had decided to have me do. After my job assignments, they asked for any problems that I was aware of that I needed to bring before his majesty. Then after I told them brother and sister struggling with medical bills were out of food. Now, they are out of food. So, his majesty would inform me that the PEC would discuss it and get back to me NEXT month at welfare meeting. I would try to interrupt that they are out of food NOW, but they still insisted they had to discuss it at PEC and would get back to me next month. So, next month they give me marching orders for last month’s problems and find out what they needed to discuss at next PEC. I never understood why they couldn’t discuss anything with me in the room or treat me as any more than their servant. I felt like they were not even letting me do my job as supposed president of the RS. The bishop told me who to put in which callings, often giving me no choice. Several of the women resented ME for putting them in a calling they didn’t like that the bishop had dictated to me about they were to go in this calling. Sometimes I tried to tell him no, such as for my two counselors. He wanted me and another lady with Utah roots, and military, then one local. So, two military with Utah roots and one local. But we already had a bishopric, primary presidency, and YM/YW that were heavily loaded toward military. And I had been in the ward two months and knew the locals felt that the temporary military ran their ward and moved out, and there was too much calling turnover because the military averaged 2 1/2 years, then moved. So, the locals really resented the military being so “in charge” when they didn’t suffer from the results. Big split in the ward….bad attempt to pull it together. The stake presidency was also a military guy, so the stake encouraged this Utah military people know how the church SHOULD be run and you locals are all idiots. So, I insisted on both my counselors be local, but that was the only hill I was ready to die on, so gave bishop better-than-the-locals who he wanted in most other callings. He had zero respect for the people who had grown up in the area and zero respect for women, and he didn’t know how a ward really should run or he would have let me do my job, and actually, you know, listened to me about the problems in the ward.

I guess I still don’t know how much was just how the church is really run, and how much was his personal incompetence. Because back then, the RSP was not invited to PEC. But my ward where I was primary president had some form of ward planning meeting, even though back then it wasn’t called that. Maybe it was an optional meeting? Maybe I was supposed to tell him when I needed a one on one with him? All I knew was I felt like their slave that they used with no respect for me as a functional adult.

So, yes, women sometimes feel like slaves.

But other times, I just felt worthless. Or better put, worth less than men. I have never felt equal to men.

[moksha]

One aspect of Mormonism is the interface between the real and the imagined; between the story and history.

The Book of Abraham is a good example.

Story: Egypt was a country discovered by Egyptus the daughter of Ham.
Actual: The Egyptians called their land Kemet. The word Egypt came from the Greeks. The oldest known structures are found at Wadi Halfa and date to around 100,000 BCE.
Story: The Book is claimed to be the writings of Abraham by the hand of Abraham.
Actual: The papyri were from the first Century CE and were part of the Breathing Permit of Hor. This permit helped the Egyptian dead access the afterlife of their religion.
Story: The BoA engraver chiseled the snout and headgear off an icon of Anubis and called him a slave.
Actual: The Mormons defiled an icon of an Egyptian God and passed him off as a slave because his fur was black.

I've written enough for a short post. You get the idea.




Egyptian Fishnet Dress from the 4th Dynasty would be classed into the Mormon category of Porn Shoulders

[wtfluff]

My Mum would not describe herself as a slave.

Have you asked her?

[Angel]

From Jim Jones to Heavens gate, none would reply they were slaves, none believed they were brainwashed.

All the offshoot polygamous groups, Warren Jeffs, to all the fundamentalist groups - apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

No one in a cult thinks they are a slave.

I get it. I didn't think I was a slave either.

... the real and the imagined....

Humans are such strange creatures. We convince ourselves of so many things.

...when I was Relief Society President. Then I sure as hell felt like I was slave to the bishopric. ... he wasn’t a good bishop, .... I just felt worthless. Or better put, worth less than men. I have never felt equal to men.

Thats what slavery is, right? Authority. Who we give Authority to.

[Mayan_Elephant]

My Mum would not describe herself as a slave.

When I was TBM I wouldn't have described myself as a slave either. If you don't move, you can't feel the chains.

It's not until you get that phone call from the detective... and then try to get help from those in the church.... that you realize... the church doesn't protect kids, it protects itself... that it isn't led by god, that "elevation" isn't God, that no one is called by god, that no one is led by god... that you realize how women are actually viewed by LDS men....

It's all herd instincts, nothing more.

Neither is my Mum a sheep. Thanks. You have some great points, Angel. Sometimes though, the same conclusions or circumstances are not universal.

[Angel]

Neither is my Mum a sheep. Thanks. You have some great points, Angel. Sometimes though, the same conclusions or circumstances are not universal.

Name a court case where a bishop, or RS president or any church official testified against a pedophile high priest to protect a child.

Unless you can provide such a court case... unless you can provide a whole list of them showing church policy....seems pretty universal... seems like its not just my circumstances.

Repeatability. Case after case after case. Its how scientists look at things.

[Mayan_Elephant]

Neither is my Mum a sheep. Thanks. You have some great points, Angel. Sometimes though, the same conclusions or circumstances are not universal.

Name a court case where a bishop, or RS president or any church official testified against a pedophile high priest to protect a child.

Unless you can provide such a court case... unless you can provide a whole list of them showing church policy....seems pretty universal... seems like its not just my circumstances.

Repeatability. Case after case after case. Its how scientists look at things.

Whether or not I can or can't find case evidence of what the church does or did or does not do - does not validate calling all the members part of a herd. Some folks are awful. Some are complicit in awful things. Most people are not.

There seems to be a disconnect in what a person named Jane or Jimmy did being just what Jane or Jimmy did. Somehow, Jane and Jimmy are being lumped into a group that is personally and individually responsible for what Joseph Smith, Sasquatch, another predator, Kirton McConkie and Boyd Packer did.

[Cnsl1]

In my humble opinion, both Mayan and Angel are right.

Not all Mormons are idiots, scoundrels, or feel like sheep. Not all are mistreated.

But, there is a huge systemic problem when it comes to the reporting of child abuse within the church. There is a huge systemic problem that sets up situations where child abusers can flourish. The church has definitely made strides in this regard, but is far behind, in my opinion. Obviously, most people are very very very against child abuse and most people do not abuse children. But, multiple cases have certainly given the impression that the church as a corporation is much more concerned with protecting its image and name rather than children. Any sane and reasonable rational individual will say that the welfare of the child is paramount, but the corporation definitely protects itself.

Additionally, it seems pretty clear that the church is also behind in regards to equal rights, women's rights, LGBTQ, gender, etc. Now, there are a huge number of LDS women who will say they do not feel slighted in the least, do not feel like second class citizens, and do not feel like sheep, but that does not diminish the huge number who do. When we grow up enmeshed within a certain culture, it comes to feel normal. And some actually like not having the added responsibility that comes with the priesthood. Many women have found they can effectively weild power in other ways when they want to.

From a distance, this church can be a pretty positive organization. Most never-mos that I've had religious conversations with seem to have mostly positive opinions about Mormons and the church as a whole. Not enough to join, of course, but the church is seen as an organization that does a lot of good things. Some weird things, but the quirkiness is forgivable. Whenever we can pull away enough to see this church as just a church like a lot of other churches, it doesn't feel so weird. Whenever we can live our lives how we want to live our lives making our own decisions on what to eat, drink, and wear, and how and when or when not to pray, and when we can take the church on OUR terms, understanding that it's there for us and not the other way around... when we can do that, the church doesn't feel as oppressive and rotten.

Now.. granted, the church as an organization does its damndest to pull you in fully and put you to work building the kingdom. But... it's possible to just say no. No, I won't do that. I don't care about having a temple recommend. I don't have any interest in all that shit you think is what I need. I just want to hang out here sometimes because I miss the music or want to hear my friend give a talk.

I think Mormonism can be defined in multiple ways. As a culture. As a religion. As a cultish dogma. And maybe mostly as a really successful corporation.

[Mayan_Elephant]

Thanks for the comments and thoughts. Nicely done.

Additionally, it seems pretty clear that the church is also behind in regards to equal rights, women's rights, LGBTQ, gender, etc. Now, there are a huge number of LDS women who will say they do not feel slighted in the least, do not feel like second class citizens, and do not feel like sheep, but that does not diminish the huge number who do. When we grow up enmeshed within a certain culture, it comes to feel normal. And some actually like not having the added responsibility that comes with the priesthood. Many women have found they can effectively wield power in other ways when they want to.

You seem to see the arguments and not just the people and you seem to acknowledge the points made rather than put the people in gallows for not being exactly perfect in their ideology. I like that. I need that of course - being the most wrong wronger in the wrong house.

I think it is not pretty clear at all that the church is behind in regards to equal rights, women's rights, LGBTQ, gender, etc. I think it is clear that the church has taken some really bad positions and said some really bad things and done some awful stuff. I think it is clear that the institution has done bad things and some individuals have done bad things. No question.

Behind though? Behind who and behind what? The all male leadership of the damn corporation is as effed up as it could get. That is behind what exactly? Behind Harvard? Behind that kid that stole women's luggage and dressed up in stolen dresses? What specifically could the church be behind?

I know many many many women who think they are way ahead in a traditional, conservative or even a religious setting. They don't want to compete with men on every front and they don't give to ****s about having a microscope and telescope inspecting their dicklessness in every aspect of their life. They would make a valid and sound argument that the church, with communities for men and for women, is way ahead on this mother/father thing they figured out.

No, I won't do that. I don't care about having a temple recommend. I don't have any interest in all that shit you think is what I need. I just want to hang out here sometimes because I miss the music or want to hear my friend give a talk.

Yep. Well said.

I think Mormonism can be defined in multiple ways. As a culture. As a religion. As a cultish dogma. And maybe mostly as a really successful corporation.

Yes. Though, I think the business had a good run from the get-go.

The church also should be defined as the single most screwed up, jacked up, effed up, collection of garbage architecture of any corporation on this non-flat earth. They did it right four times (Manti, Logan, SlC, St. George). They did okay when they built the old multi-story chapels. Now, they are the Amway of architecture but at least Amway soap can clean something so not exactly like Amway either.

[hmb]

In thinking about it some more, I think the church is a "One Sized Fits All" organization. It's tough to be a square peg when everyone is expected to fit through the same damned, round hole. Some people naturally fit the mold. Some people force themselves to fit the mold. That's where I had been. I would squish myself through the round hole and never really fit. While so many of the people were really nice, I always felt like a fish out of water. Leaving wasn't really hard, but it was a bit of a shock.

[Angel]

Neither is my Mum a sheep. Thanks. You have some great points, Angel. Sometimes though, the same conclusions or circumstances are not universal.

Name a court case where a bishop, or RS president or any church official testified against a pedophile high priest to protect a child.

Unless you can provide such a court case... unless you can provide a whole list of them showing church policy....seems pretty universal... seems like its not just my circumstances.

Repeatability. Case after case after case. Its how scientists look at things.

Whether or not I can or can't find case evidence of what the church does or did or does not do - does not validate calling all the members part of a herd. Some folks are awful. Some are complicit in awful things. Most people are not.

There seems to be a disconnect in what a person named Jane or Jimmy did being just what Jane or Jimmy did. Somehow, Jane and Jimmy are being lumped into a group that is personally and individually responsible for what Joseph Smith, Sasquatch, another predator, Kirton McConkie and Boyd Packer did.

The "it's just one bad apple" argument is actually a way to blame victims - isolate them, it is just you, everyone else is fine...

me too.
Its not just me.
It is not just one bad apple.

You cannot find case evidence.

[Mayan_Elephant]

Name a court case where a bishop, or RS president or any church official testified against a pedophile high priest to protect a child.

Unless you can provide such a court case... unless you can provide a whole list of them showing church policy....seems pretty universal... seems like its not just my circumstances.

Repeatability. Case after case after case. Its how scientists look at things.

Whether or not I can or can't find case evidence of what the church does or did or does not do - does not validate calling all the members part of a herd. Some folks are awful. Some are complicit in awful things. Most people are not.

There seems to be a disconnect in what a person named Jane or Jimmy did being just what Jane or Jimmy did. Somehow, Jane and Jimmy are being lumped into a group that is personally and individually responsible for what Joseph Smith, Sasquatch, another predator, Kirton McConkie and Boyd Packer did.

The "it's just one bad apple" argument is actually a way to blame victims - isolate them, it is just you, everyone else is fine...

me too.
Its not just me.
It is not just one bad apple.

You cannot find case evidence.

No, I have not made a one bad apple argument. I have said the opposite of a one bad apple argument but I will say it more explicitly again. There are many people that have made awful choices. There are institutional and systemic problems. There are processes that are flawed. There are real victims because of the choices of individuals and the process of the institution.

Not every person who associates with that institution, particularly the religion or community, is complicit or responsible for the bad choices of the individuals that have committed crimes and atrocities.

I have not looked for case evidence because the argument is flawed. Case evidence, including a heinous case, would not implicate a common member. Neither would case evidence of corporate fraud implicate a staff employee or customer. What I can't do and what I am not doing are not mutually inclusive and neither are evidence of a conspiracy.

I don't have any interest in all that shit you think is what I need. I just want to hang out here sometimes because I miss the music or want to hear my friend give a talk.

Sometimes a fish is just a fish and a rock is just a rock. Cn made a succinct and solid point. Sometimes people go to that church for a friend and have no interest in - or responsibility for - all that shit.

[alas]

Whether or not I can or can't find case evidence of what the church does or did or does not do - does not validate calling all the members part of a herd. Some folks are awful. Some are complicit in awful things. Most people are not.

There seems to be a disconnect in what a person named Jane or Jimmy did being just what Jane or Jimmy did. Somehow, Jane and Jimmy are being lumped into a group that is personally and individually responsible for what Joseph Smith, Sasquatch, another predator, Kirton McConkie and Boyd Packer did.

The "it's just one bad apple" argument is actually a way to blame victims - isolate them, it is just you, everyone else is fine...

me too.
Its not just me.
It is not just one bad apple.

You cannot find case evidence.

No, I have not made a one bad apple argument. I have said the opposite of a one bad apple argument but I will say it more explicitly again. There are many people that have made awful choices. There are institutional and systemic problems. There are processes that are flawed. There are real victims because of the choices of individuals and the process of the institution.

Not every person who associates with that institution, particularly the religion or community, is complicit or responsible for the bad choices of the individuals that have committed crimes and atrocities.

I have not looked for case evidence because the argument is flawed. Case evidence, including a heinous case, would not implicate a common member. Neither would case evidence of corporate fraud implicate a staff employee or customer. What I can't do and what I am not doing are not mutually inclusive and neither are evidence of a conspiracy.

I don't have any interest in all that shit you think is what I need. I just want to hang out here sometimes because I miss the music or want to hear my friend give a talk.

Sometimes a fish is just a fish and a rock is just a rock. Cn made a succinct and solid point. Sometimes people go to that church for a friend and have no interest in - or responsibility for - all that shit.

I think here it helps to clarify a difference between the system as established by the few big wigs (even the bald ones) and the local level of people trying to do their best in a flawed system, and other people who just want to be comfortable and not deal with difficult problems.

I think I understand Angel was hurt by not only the system, but by ward members who just didn’t want to have to deal with difficult problems. The system is very flawed. It totally fails to support sexual abuse victims. It doesn’t even think they need support. I’ll tell a story to back this up in a minute. First of all there is the sexism of the system. Always “priesthood” is more important than any one member, especially a female member who doesn’t even have the possibility of ever being priesthood. You see this in how missionary work is done, in how wards are divided, it is everywhere in the system. Then there is the fact the church thinks its job is to get sinners to repent. The healthy don’t need a physician. Only the sinner needs help from the church. Then there is the fact that their G. D. Brains shut down on any real life difficulty. Think about how Packer just couldn’t put his brain around God making gays gay. So, he retreated to blaming them.

The story is about Packer also, and not only shows how the church thinks sexual abuse is no big deal, that the victim is not really harmed all that much, that it is sort of just like any other sin and the sinner is the one we need to get to repent. My friend was a stake president whose wife was sexually abused by her father. She had stuffed everything inside until her life was safe enough to deal with. So, married with children and church active husband. Then she fell apart. She was unhappy with the secular therapy, first it allowed the survivors to cut off family, act on their anger, and stay stuck in the anger (her feelings, and she wasn’t my client so I don’t know the quality of her therapy or support group.) but the secular therapy also failed to address the relationship to God, religious questions. Yup, I had that problem too. So, her bishop husband ran into other women who were dealing with the same issues and got them together in a group. He worked at answering their questions about God. After several years, it because a successful program and women were coming from all over. The first presidency heard about it and wanted to know what the blank he thought he was doing. So, they called him on the carpet. Boyd K P says, “why aren’t they over something that happened to them in the second grade?” Totally dismissing the idea that being raped by one’s father caused any long term damage. He just couldn’t see why it might be a problem.

My friend’s program did more to keep me in the church than anything else ever did. And my own stake president’s Boydish attitude of why have such a program when it isn’t church basket ball was the final straw that drove me out.

But what I have heard from Angel is that for her family too many ward members didn’t believe or didn’t care. They wanted the whole thing to go away and not challenge their itty bitty brains, or their itty bitty compassion. They just didn’t believe such a thing could happen, so the kids were lying. Or if it did happen, it was the kid’s fault.

So, Angel has a good reason to be angry.

But Mayan has a point. There are good people in the people part of the church. But it is like my mother who knew something was very wrong between me and my father, but did nothing. She just couldn’t believe my father would do such a thing. And even if she did, what could she do? She couldn’t divorce him and support five kids. Not in the 1960s with no real work experience and her low paying job where any and every male got promoted over her. So, she could ignore and hope there really wasn’t a problem between me and my father, or she could blow the family apart and put us all on welfare. She was caught, helpless in a bad system where she was helpless against the bad apple, which made her a bad apple too.

No matter how good the good people are, when they are in a bad system, when they are part of that system, it just turns them into rotten apples too.

My husband and I recently had a discussion about why he stays in that system, knowing it is a bad system, knowing it really hurt me. How can he stay part of that system. Well, his leaving won’t help me, and he does find some good in the system, in spite of all the problems, so, yes selfishly he stays part of a system he knows can be harmful because it doesn’t harm him. Does that make him a bad apple too? Or just benefitting from a bad system in which he is a privileged member?

Sometimes the privileged members don’t want to know about the problems because they don’t want to lose their privilege. So, they ignore the harm, or stay in the system thinking they will be a safe person in that system. I know several members who know the church hurts gays, but they stay justifying it in that they think they will be a safe spot. They don’t see how upholding the system does more harm that they can ever protect someone from by being in the system.

Is it a mistake to stay in the system when they benefit when it is hurting others? There is a fable about a perfect happy town that stays happy by torturing one child, and how some people choose to leave because they would rather take their chances in a less happy place than hurt someone else.

[Mayan_Elephant]

The "it's just one bad apple" argument is actually a way to blame victims - isolate them, it is just you, everyone else is fine...

me too.
Its not just me.
It is not just one bad apple.

You cannot find case evidence.

No, I have not made a one bad apple argument. I have said the opposite of a one bad apple argument but I will say it more explicitly again. There are many people that have made awful choices. There are institutional and systemic problems. There are processes that are flawed. There are real victims because of the choices of individuals and the process of the institution.

Not every person who associates with that institution, particularly the religion or community, is complicit or responsible for the bad choices of the individuals that have committed crimes and atrocities.

I have not looked for case evidence because the argument is flawed. Case evidence, including a heinous case, would not implicate a common member. Neither would case evidence of corporate fraud implicate a staff employee or customer. What I can't do and what I am not doing are not mutually inclusive and neither are evidence of a conspiracy.

I don't have any interest in all that shit you think is what I need. I just want to hang out here sometimes because I miss the music or want to hear my friend give a talk.

Sometimes a fish is just a fish and a rock is just a rock. Cn made a succinct and solid point. Sometimes people go to that church for a friend and have no interest in - or responsibility for - all that shit.

I think here it helps to clarify a difference between the system as established by the few big wigs (even the bald ones) and the local level of people trying to do their best in a flawed system, and other people who just want to be comfortable and not deal with difficult problems.

I think I understand Angel was hurt by not only the system, but by ward members who just didn’t want to have to deal with difficult problems. The system is very flawed. It totally fails to support sexual abuse victims. It doesn’t even think they need support. I’ll tell a story to back this up in a minute. First of all there is the sexism of the system. Always “priesthood” is more important than any one member, especially a female member who doesn’t even have the possibility of ever being priesthood. You see this in how missionary work is done, in how wards are divided, it is everywhere in the system. Then there is the fact the church thinks its job is to get sinners to repent. The healthy don’t need a physician. Only the sinner needs help from the church. Then there is the fact that their G. D. Brains shut down on any real life difficulty. Think about how Packer just couldn’t put his brain around God making gays gay. So, he retreated to blaming them.

The story is about Packer also, and not only shows how the church thinks sexual abuse is no big deal, that the victim is not really harmed all that much, that it is sort of just like any other sin and the sinner is the one we need to get to repent. My friend was a stake president whose wife was sexually abused by her father. She had stuffed everything inside until her life was safe enough to deal with. So, married with children and church active husband. Then she fell apart. She was unhappy with the secular therapy, first it allowed the survivors to cut off family, act on their anger, and stay stuck in the anger (her feelings, and she wasn’t my client so I don’t know the quality of her therapy or support group.) but the secular therapy also failed to address the relationship to God, religious questions. Yup, I had that problem too. So, her bishop husband ran into other women who were dealing with the same issues and got them together in a group. He worked at answering their questions about God. After several years, it because a successful program and women were coming from all over. The first presidency heard about it and wanted to know what the blank he thought he was doing. So, they called him on the carpet. Boyd K P says, “why aren’t they over something that happened to them in the second grade?” Totally dismissing the idea that being raped by one’s father caused any long term damage. He just couldn’t see why it might be a problem.

My friend’s program did more to keep me in the church than anything else ever did. And my own stake president’s Boydish attitude of why have such a program when it isn’t church basket ball was the final straw that drove me out.

But what I have heard from Angel is that for her family too many ward members didn’t believe or didn’t care. They wanted the whole thing to go away and not challenge their itty bitty brains, or their itty bitty compassion. They just didn’t believe such a thing could happen, so the kids were lying. Or if it did happen, it was the kid’s fault.

So, Angel has a good reason to be angry.

But Mayan has a point. There are good people in the people part of the church. But it is like my mother who knew something was very wrong between me and my father, but did nothing. She just couldn’t believe my father would do such a thing. And even if she did, what could she do? She couldn’t divorce him and support five kids. Not in the 1960s with no real work experience and her low paying job where any and every male got promoted over her. So, she could ignore and hope there really wasn’t a problem between me and my father, or she could blow the family apart and put us all on welfare. She was caught, helpless in a bad system where she was helpless against the bad apple, which made her a bad apple too.

No matter how good the good people are, when they are in a bad system, when they are part of that system, it just turns them into rotten apples too.

My husband and I recently had a discussion about why he stays in that system, knowing it is a bad system, knowing it really hurt me. How can he stay part of that system. Well, his leaving won’t help me, and he does find some good in the system, in spite of all the problems, so, yes selfishly he stays part of a system he knows can be harmful because it doesn’t harm him. Does that make him a bad apple too? Or just benefitting from a bad system in which he is a privileged member?

Sometimes the privileged members don’t want to know about the problems because they don’t want to lose their privilege. So, they ignore the harm, or stay in the system thinking they will be a safe person in that system. I know several members who know the church hurts gays, but they stay justifying it in that they think they will be a safe spot. They don’t see how upholding the system does more harm that they can ever protect someone from by being in the system.

Is it a mistake to stay in the system when they benefit when it is hurting others? There is a fable about a perfect happy town that stays happy by torturing one child, and how some people choose to leave because they would rather take their chances in a less happy place than hurt someone else.

Alas, I want to clarify something here. First, thank you.

But the thing to clarify - there are real victims. There are real atrocities. There are real crimes. Nothing I say should be interpreted in a way that diminishes that point. Neither do I say anything to diminish the real aggression of anyone, including an institution. I hope this dialogue continues, even if it bumps into disagreements.

[Cnsl1]

My heart aches for anyone abused.

When I say the church is behind.. i mean lags behind the science, the data, the social understanding how to deal and address and treat the victims and the oppressed and those who are a little different than the norm. It isn't everyone in the church, but because the church is really led by old white men who mostly grew up in very conservative communities, it takes longer than average for change to happen, for policies to change so that pedophiles and abusers can't so easily run amok. Sometimes brave folks have to speak out very loudly and raise awareness and then get excommunicated before their ideas are accepted and put into practice. Thank you Sam Young.

As an aside, the church lags behind most social norms and trends, such as age of first marriage, age of first pregnancy, number of children, etc. These data nearly parallel social trends at large, just on a different plane. So, Mormons are having fewer kids and getting married older but not as few and as older as the national norms.

I don't think the problem of abuse is really a church problem, just that the church is way behind in knowing how to address and prevent and support victims. .. again, because old white men who think a woman should be able to get over something that happened in second grade are the ones running things. But it's getting better.

My mother was abused by her father. She had a horrific home life. Her mother knew and didn't stop it. Their family was not LDS, but lived for a time in a very LDS community. My mother saw the kindness and happiness and love in the LDS homes of her friends and wanted to join the church but her parents wouldn't let her. Eventually she did join after she married. And eventually she was able to forgive her father and he apologized. Her mother never acknowledged it, but repressed and denied, which was very difficult for my mother to accept and understand. My grandmother never divorced him. Never left him. He was her provider. She'd grown up with a mother who divorced several times and didn't want that life. And, Those were very different times. There was never a charge filed. There was never a report made. But the abuse obviously had a big effect on my mother's mental health. I was extremely fortunate to grow up happy and healthy with no abuse of any kind, and with a relationship with my grandparents whom I loved. My mother gave me that, probably at great expense to her own mental health. I didn't know until many years later.

These things happen everywhere. But we do have a bit better awareness now. We're better at spotting the signs of abuse. We're better at knowing how to treat both the victims and the perpetrators. But it still goes on and is still hidden, and church organizations that you'd hope and expect would be a haven for safety and love too often are places where these perpetrators can hide and carry on. Boy Scouts?

So it's very distressing when we read and hear more and more stories of abuse when bishops knew or when church attorneys pay off victims and silence them with non disclosure agreements. It sort of feels like the LDS church is too much like the Catholic church in that regard; we've created an organization that allows abusers to exist and thrive, and not done enough to protect victims and future victims. And maybe so long as there is a priest-penitent law, there will always be that dilemma. Maybe we can't get away from that and I'm not suggesting that law should be repeled. I really don't know. But maybe members of any church, of any community need to be a bit more diligent in listening to children.

It probably should be noted that some states (I think this is the case but I'm not 100% certain) do allow bishops to report abuse, but their report cannot be used as a legal testimony against the abuser (because of the priest-penitent law, which is a federal law). I think the bishops in AZ could have reported the abuse in that horrific case, which probably would have saved the baby from being abused. The man could not have been charged based on the bishop 's report. My suspicion is that the bishops probably didn't know and were not told this by the legal council from the church. If I understand the law right, the bishop could have made that decision on his own and been legally fine. I'm not a lawyer, though, and may be totally wrong. Someone who knows more might chime in.

Sometimes these kinds of things remind me of Stanley Milgram's famous obedience study at Harvard where 65% of participants continued shocking the other volunteer (who was really a confederate and not really being shocked) as far as the shock machine would go and well past the person's pleas to stop. Why? Because someone in authority told them to do it.

Would we be a minority voice in this case? If I was a bishop, would I defy the church legal counsel to not report, risk being sued by the perpetrator, and make a call that possibly saves a child?

What would Jesus do?

[Angel]

Whether or not I can or can't find case evidence of what the church does or did or does not do - does not validate calling all the members part of a herd. Some folks are awful. Some are complicit in awful things. Most people are not.

There seems to be a disconnect in what a person named Jane or Jimmy did being just what Jane or Jimmy did. Somehow, Jane and Jimmy are being lumped into a group that is personally and individually responsible for what Joseph Smith, Sasquatch, another predator, Kirton McConkie and Boyd Packer did.

The "it's just one bad apple" argument is actually a way to blame victims - isolate them, it is just you, everyone else is fine...

me too.
Its not just me.
It is not just one bad apple.

You cannot find case evidence.

No, I have not made a one bad apple argument. I have said the opposite of a one bad apple argument but I will say it more explicitly again. There are many people that have made awful choices. There are institutional and systemic problems. There are processes that are flawed. There are real victims because of the choices of individuals and the process of the institution.

Not every person who associates with that institution, particularly the religion or community, is complicit or responsible for the bad choices of the individuals that have committed crimes and atrocities.

I have not looked for case evidence because the argument is flawed. Case evidence, including a heinous case, would not implicate a common member. Neither would case evidence of corporate fraud implicate a staff employee or customer. What I can't do and what I am not doing are not mutually inclusive and neither are evidence of a conspiracy.

I don't have any interest in all that shit you think is what I need. I just want to hang out here sometimes because I miss the music or want to hear my friend give a talk.

Sometimes a fish is just a fish and a rock is just a rock. Cn made a succinct and solid point. Sometimes people go to that church for a friend and have no interest in - or responsibility for - all that shit.

The church is not a company, members are not staff.

My job doesn't include secret ceremonies where I agree my boss talks for God, has the authority of God, I do not covenant to sacrifice everything I have to my boss.

Mormons: do not care for homeless (I have stories about this too). Mormons do not report predators (no mandatory reporting). Mormons believe their leaders speak for God, are called by god, and follow leaders as if they are following God. Mormonism is a cult. Just attend a testimony meeting "I knooow our leaders are calked of god...I know this church is true ..." That innocent pair of grandparents? That oh so nice ministering couple? They aren't on your side. Surprise attack is needed - he'll destroy all his files and evidence if he gets one hint of being discovered. Grooming - expert at smiling, expert at looking like the most loving kind person there is, expert at lies - those "kind" faces, any of them will turn on you, warn him, protect him - they aren't your friends.

For anyone in trouble reading this who needs help or is fighting abuse, no mormon will help, in fact they will testify against you, call you a liar, try to silence you, try to isolate you. It is possible to win in court - I did - but to win you have to select your jury very carefully. Secular athiest detectives are your best bet. Avoid anyone who knows "him" is your best bet. Collect your own evidence. Fight like hell, be smart, learn from others who have won in court (few do). You are not just fighting for yourself but for all the others he has and will abuse too. You aren't the crazy one, they are.

[Mayan_Elephant]

All abuse is awful. I guess we have to keep saying that. There is no excuse for violence.

The church is a corporation. That is a fact.
The members are patrons and volunteers who make up a portion of the staff. Some folks are often described as part of a "lay clergy." Other members are also employees.

There are many members of the LDS church who will advocate for victims and justice. If anyone needs help, explore all resources and yes - be your own best advocate if that is an option.

[Angel]

All abuse is awful. I guess we have to keep saying that. There is no excuse for violence.

The church is a corporation. That is a fact.
The members are patrons and volunteers who make up a portion of the staff. Some folks are often described as part of a "lay clergy." Other members are also employees.

There are many members of the LDS church who will advocate for victims and justice. If anyone needs help, explore all resources and yes - be your own best advocate if that is an option.

There are not members who help victims.

Again, provide examples of court cases where anyone went against priest-penitant privilidge and testified against a fellow high priest.

It is a male heirarchy. Members are brainwashed, will protect their dad, will support and protect their brother, will protect their son over "wild accusations" by "some disturbed woman/child".

Visualize someone you look up to, that you follow - Visualize your own grandfather, Visualize your own dad, Visualize your beloved son, your brother. Now imagine some neighborhood kid goes running home crying to their parents about something no one will actually repeat, no one will clearly say - in a culture of shame where people don't talk about some things. Who do you believe? Who will you support in court? Would you testify against your own brother? Your own bishop? Chances are you protect your bishop, testify about the service projects you have done together, testify how amazing he is.

It's called betrayal trauma. When someone who is a respected and beloved by all -a leader turns out to be a pedophile... they betray you. Grooming - it is an art form, smiles, eye contact,

For those who need to hear it - they will see you as a dishonest, emotionally unstable, physiologically disturbed "sad" situation. Betrayal trauma will #$#@ you over, you will not be emotionally stable, you will be a little crazy. It won't be just "him" who betrays you, all of them will. They will pat you on the back, listen, then spread gossip, whispers, head nods, will talk bad about you behind your back, will say things like "how could anyone talk so badly about so-n-so", will tell one another - I don't believe them either... They are NOT on your side.

There is outside help, you can take him down, but you have to gather good evidence - good evidence - you are up against the entire congregation, not just one individual. 98% of the population is NOT Mormon, your ream is much bigger than one little congregation. Gather your people. Know your enemies. As painful as it is to understand how they really view you, know your enemies.

[Mayan_Elephant]

The church can be a big mess. And there can still be good helpful people within that church.