NOM

I think it's just a coincidence with timing but that's because I think they released the power points to get the temple changes out there quicker than the time it would have taken to produce new films. I believe leaders were shooting for 'shock and awe' with all the recent changes. Waiting for a movie to be produced would put a kink in those plans.

I’m not so sure it is a coincidence - they may have slapped something together fast knowing the news was going to break.

Part of me says that people who make mistakes should be given second chances - but do I want to extend that to someone who molested a child, and caused that person severe lifelong psychological harm? I’m not sure I’m that merciful. Should the incident have disqualified Van Wagenen from directing temple movies? Even if you look at it from a strictly PR standpoint, it was a huge mistake but to allow someone with something so explosive in their past to direct the temple videos.

But the thing I find really troubling? Several people on Reddit have pointed out he was merely disfellowshipped for molesting a child, while Sam Young was excommunicated for trying to protect them.

Some people have forgotten Sam Young far too quickly. I haven’t.

This sounds familiar to me. Back in October 2013 when they lawyers working on the Michael Jensen case were getting ready to file their suit against the church, the Martinsburg WV stake presidency, and other involved individuals, there were plenty of rumors and scuttlebutt going around that the case was about to go public. Literally a few days before they planned filing of the legal case, the stake presidency was reorganized to get the people who were going to be named in the lawsuit out of the stake presidency, even though their normal term was not up for a couple more years.

It appears to be standard practice to hurry up and get people away from positions when they know that major bad press is on it's way.

The church more than likely knew that something was going to go down with Mr. VanWagenen. It's possible they already had some changes in the works, but with the knowledge of the pending announcement, they fast tracked those changes and that's how we got the PowerPoint presentation since they didn't feel they had enough time to do something to their usual standards.

Once again, so much for their power of discernment.

When it comes to the Mormon church covering up sex abuse and Mormon abusers, there's no such thing as a coincidence.

The church had to act fast and under cover. It's my opinion that they chose to do it under the guise of lifting the veil. This is an easy change to pass through and is also a quick win for the Rusty Revelation Machine.

Pet Peeve Rant: I wish people would stop comparing everything to Sam Young getting excommunicated. It's pointless to make the comparison when the pattern of church behavior is totally obvious!

Sam Young has integrity!
VanWagenen, Joseph Bishop, etcetera do not!

Who does the church side with every time?

no1saint wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:06 am

... change or pre-emptive damage control ...

I vote: BOTH.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:13 am

I’m not so sure it is a coincidence - they may have slapped something together fast knowing the news was going to break.

Part of me says that people who make mistakes should be given second chances - but do I want to extend that to someone who molested a child, and caused that person severe lifelong psychological harm? I’m not sure I’m that merciful. Should the incident have disqualified Van Wagenen from directing temple movies? Even if you look at it from a strictly PR standpoint, it was a huge mistake but to allow someone with something so explosive in their past to direct the temple videos.

But the thing I find really troubling? Several people on Reddit have pointed out he was merely disfellowshipped for molesting a child, while Sam Young was excommunicated for trying to protect them.

Some people have forgotten Sam Young far too quickly. I haven’t.

Amen
Amen
Amen. What about priorities, President Nelson?

This whole situation is so annoying because virtually no temple recommend holding Mormon knows the name, "Sterling Van Wagenen". Many know that Michael Ballam was playing Satan in the 1990 movie, but he was probably the most high profile actor since Gordon Jump played Peter in one of the 1970 movies. But the director of the 2013 movies was largely unknown to LDS audiences, and his recent conviction will go unnoticed. I literally attended an endowment session on Tuesday with my siblings and temple worker father and certainly nothing was brought up.

It's further damning because Sterling Van Wagenen was quietly not disciplined and not prevented from teaching at BYU in 1993. That same year 6 scholars were loudly excommunicated for publishing what became the subject of the Gospel Topic Essays twenty years later. This will continue to be ignored just like Joseph Bishop's MTC rape room last year.