Member of local Bishopric jailed on sex abuse charges

[_mentalgymnast]

MG, just go back to the shulem thread where you got your ass handed to you. This thread is not for you.

If folks want to go back and read that thread, that's fine. No problem. I asked a question in a previous thread to that one in which Shulem then recommended a new thread be started in order to comment on the question I asked. He then did so...at length.

I appreciated his comments and those of others.

I think you may be making something more out of it that is necessary...unless, of course, you have some other motive/purpose in mind?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Thanks for once again showing us things you never intended to.

I'm not hiding anything. I have, however, had to flesh out a few things after seeing that there was a rush to judgement/condemnation.

Regards,
MG

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dang it, guys. I had MG on ignore until he makes amends and all that. But now? I'm changing it to permaban. You can't be pro-pedophile and expect to be listened to.

- Doc

[_mentalgymnast]

MG, if your worldview leads you to a place where you seriously propose that your God put the abuser in a position where he could abuse a child so that he could get caught, maybe you should think about rethinking your position.

Read everything I've said in this thread and I think you will see that my views are not quite as simple and straightforward/black and white as you and others might like to make them out to be.

I find it rather interesting that some folks here would like to put God in a box and absolutely demand that He function/operate in a limited/finite...expected...way. And if He doesn't, then well, that simply gives one more reason/rationale for not believing in Him and/or calling Him a wuss.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Dang it, guys. I had MG on ignore until he makes amends and all that. But now? I'm changing it to permaban. You can't be pro-pedophile and expect to be listened to.

- Doc

Now THAT is troll like behavior. I will leave it to others to observe/interpret this bolded statement for what it is. As for me, I will call out DocCam for being a liar and a scoundrel for having said it.

To be clear, I am NOT pro pedophile. I think that this sort of behavior is disgusting/abhorrent in the sight of God and any reasonable man/woman.

Again, I will invite folks to go back and read all of my comments on this thread in order to see my views within a contextual framework that allows for something more than a simple black and white interpretation of my views.

It appears as though a possible thread jacking and/or derailing is taking place at this point with the name calling, rush to judgement, etc., (fecal matter insinuations having been brought into it again...). Yuck.

That means it's time for me to bow out and let the thread go where it may.

Regards,
MG

[_Res Ipsa]

MG, if your worldview leads you to a place where you seriously propose that your God put the abuser in a position where he could abuse a child so that he could get caught, maybe you should think about rethinking your position.

Read everything I've said in this thread and I think you will see that my views are not quite as simple and straightforward/black and white as you and others might like to make them out to be.

I find it rather interesting that some folks here would like to put God in a box and absolutely demand that He function/operate in a limited/finite...expected...way. And if He doesn't, then well, that simply gives one more reason/rationale for not believing in Him and/or calling Him a wuss.

Regards,
MG

My comment has literally nothing to do with black and white or simple and straightforward thinking. That's just you dodging the issue.

it also has literally nothing to do with putting God in a box. That's another dodge.

I simply took what your own post said and suggested that, if your world view takes you there, you might want to consider rethinking your world view.

The overloaded Bishop problem, if there actually was sone, is entirely of the church's own making. They could fix that in any number of ways that would not put children at greater risk of being abused. Or they could take the same kind of steps that other churches have taken to reduce the opportunities for pedophiles in their midst. But they did neither. Yes, we all know you can do you mental gymnastics thing and invent all kinds of rationales for this behavior. But if you have to invent a God who would unnecessarily harm a child in order to bust a child molester, maybe you need to consider the morality of your modus operandi.

[_Res Ipsa]

MG, if your worldview leads you to a place where you seriously propose that your God put the abuser in a position where he could abuse a child so that he could get caught, maybe you should think about rethinking your position.

Read everything I've said in this thread and I think you will see that my views are not quite as simple and straightforward/black and white as you and others might like to make them out to be.

I find it rather interesting that some folks here would like to put God in a box and absolutely demand that He function/operate in a limited/finite...expected...way. And if He doesn't, then well, that simply gives one more reason/rationale for not believing in Him and/or calling Him a wuss.

Regards,
MG

My comment has literally nothing to do with black and white or simple and straightforward thinking. That's just you dodging the issue.

it also has literally nothing to do with putting God in a box. That's another dodge.

I simply took what your own post said and suggested that, if your world view takes you there, you might want to consider rethinking your world view.

The overloaded Bishop problem, if there actually was sone, is entirely of the church's own making. They could fix that in any number of ways that would not put children at greater risk of being abused. Or they could take the same kind of steps that other churches have taken to reduce the opportunities for pedophiles in their midst. But they did neither. Yes, we all know you can do you mental gymnastics thing and invent all kinds of rationales for this behavior. But if you have to invent a God who would unnecessarily harm a child in order to bust a child molester, maybe you need to consider the morality of your modus operandi.

[_Themis]

I would say, as has been said earlier in this thread, that the change in church policy to permit Bishop's counselors to help him interview the youth and relieve his burdens also creates a greater risk in that there are more men doing the interviews and by association a greater risk of some men falling prey to temptation/sin.

The odds go up. And I'm torn between the fact that Bishop's are able to have their own burdens lightened vs. the risk that there are going to be more instances such as the one we're discussing in this thread.

No argument to the downside of this policy change. I think that there may need to be more safeguards put in place/practice. I know that a few years ago when I was membership clerk that when counselors are/were doing interviews that they had a clerk in attendance outside the door during the interview so that they weren't strictly alone with the youth and/or women.

I think it should be pointed out again that we don't know whether or not the man in question in this thread committed this sin/misbehavior before or during his term as a Bishop's counselor. We don't know the whole story.

And to be clear...again...what he did was just plain wrong and justice demands accountability. And that is what we are observing as this unfortunate circumstance plays out.

Regards,
MG

They should just stop doing worthiness interviews altogether. Including with the adults. It's really just a method in controlling the membership.

[_Craig Paxton]

What is being lost in this discussion is an inherent flaw built into Mormon Culture. Mormon culture places so much pressure on individuals within the culture to attain perfection, project that image among fellow believers and attain priesthood advancement and achieve status within the culture. Mormonism is a status cult wherein members worship leaders and those that possess authority within the church. This creates a system where those in positions of authority must live up to the unattainable expectations of perfection within this society, one that demands perfection of imperfect men. But because humans are not perfect it also creates a system where many of these men must lie and falsely project a perfection that they do not have. The entire system is built on lies and having to lie to maintain the impossible expectations of perfection. Obviously this councilor is a perfect example of this phenomenon and how it has functions within the Mormon culture.

While many of these men called to these positions of authority over their fellow ward members are able to survive within this false environment and the impossible expectations, once in a while the culture will produce one of these very flawed men, who has worked their way up through the system undetected through their use of lies. And despite being subjected to multiple temple worthiness interviews, where the Mormon claim of holding the special magical powers of inspiration, revelation and discernment should be a failsafe…these men, these liars still slip through undetected by the very men claiming to hold this special magical power… having failed to ever uncover the lies of these men. In other words despite holding this magical power of discernment, evil men and institutional liars are still called into positions of authority where they can hide ever deeper behind their callings of authority within the system undetected by both man and the Mormon god. Claims of holding these special powers is a just the thing these lairs need to ply their trade on unsuspecting members of the church who believe in this rubbish.

[_Lemmie]

I would say, as has been said earlier in this thread, that the change in church policy to permit Bishop's counselors to help him interview the youth and relieve his burdens also creates a greater risk in that there are more men doing the interviews and by association a greater risk of some men falling prey to temptation/sin.

The odds go up. And I'm torn between the fact that Bishop's are able to have their own burdens lightened vs. the risk that there are going to be more instances such as the one we're discussing in this thread.

You're weighing out the upside of a policy which you define as saving minutes so that Bishops have it easier, against the downside of that same policy leaving open an easy loophole so that a pedophile might gain full and private access to molest children, and you're torn?

The overloaded Bishop problem, if there actually was sone, is entirely of the church's own making. They could fix that in any number of ways that would not put children at greater risk of being abused. Or they could take the same kind of steps that other churches have taken to reduce the opportunities for pedophiles in their midst. But they did neither. Yes, we all know you can do you mental gymnastics thing and invent all kinds of rationales for this behavior. But if you have to invent a God who would unnecessarily harm a child in order to bust a child molester, maybe you need to consider the morality of your modus operandi.

I couldn't agree more.