Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:09 pm
Having done my level best to understand the child abuse Rosebud is referring to, I think it's the claims of organized, ritualistic child abuse allegedly embedded in, or covered up by, the organization of the LDS church. We've discussed such claims, sometimes in great detail, from time to time here. And lots of folks here have expressed their opinions as to what is true or false about those claims.
Given that Mormon Stories has publicized cases like Adam Steed's and the harm caused by Jodi Hildebrandt, accusing him of covering up child abuse seems odd. But he may very well have stated his opinion that some claims of organized, ritualistic child abuse embedded in Mormonism are not true. in my opinion, Rosebud has transformed that into calling those who make such claims "crazy" (I don't trust for a second any characterization of Dehlin that comes from Rosebud) and "covering up" abuse that she apparently claims actually occurred. Rosebud won't give any specifics because the actual facts underlying her claim. Having control over the facts gives her power -- giving us the facts would give us the power to make up our own minds.
I think the combination of the gravity of the claims combined with the refusal to provide facts likely generates a feeling of discomfort for all of us. In a way, it functions like gaslighting. Maybe whatever our opinions are of Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation are wildly wrong and Dehlin is Satan incarnate and the Open Stories Foundation is deceiving us. That's what gaslighting does -- causes folks to distrust their judgment.
In my official capacity, I wonder whether this perfectly normal and understandable feeling of discomfort provides a principled reason for censoring posts that we can apply with consistency. My general bias is toward letting people say what's on their minds. I also have a professionally-derived bias against making new rules to address a specific set of bad facts: lawyers say "bad facts make bad law." All of you who are chiming in are very helpful to me in thinking through the ramifications of action or inaction by us as moderators in this case. Thank you.
I think this is a very clear and concise response. Which explains the magnitude of what everyone is perceiving. I would feel sad to discover rosebud is telling the truth and not getting support. But only as far as, the doubt I feel. There is nothing to tip me over to either side of the fence. One side being that I would hate to assume a "victim" wasn't a victim and turn out to be a victim and the other side I feel is scattered and confusing. But in saying this rosebud has made it very clear that she isn't posting to discuss, she is posting to document and to attract the attention of the other side. In which case there really isn't anything to discuss.
But my responses to this are that she would receive a massive amount of support if she were able to express what it actually is that is going on without the insidious feeling rants. As a woman, I would be one of the first to support another woman who has been abused. The problem lies in how rosebud is presenting herself. So it leaves people on the fence and that's not really a place people want to be. And it's very hard to ignore.
I personally do not feel that people should be concerned that her posts might affect dehlins reputation. Or that they are really considered defamatory. If anything she's actually doing him a favour because she is actually making him look innocent. Which is a real shame because something in me wants to believe her.
No idea what is meant by the church covering up child abuse. I've never heard anything about the modern day church having some kind of ritualistic thing going on. But I have learned to not be surprised by this kind of thing given that churches in general appear to have a reputation of child abuse and that there is a LOT of childhood abuse being aired in relation to the media and childhood celebrities. There is a sense of a taste of disgust at how the world is appearing to be beneath the cracks.
