omegaseamaster75

Actually the didn't the word of wisdom is not given by way of commandment. Our teetotaling leaders made it policy in the 1920's to prohibit the consumption of it in totality.

I never said that. nor implied, in fact quite the opposite.

The title of the article explains it Drinking an extra glass of wine 'will shorten your life by 30 minutes. We are not "right" about anything We don't obey the word of wisdom because the things in it are bad for us. We do it because God told us to.

Only if you want to.

Said the guy who wasn't

I almost never mention that I was AP on my mission. Mostly because I was not the most obedient (even though I was very effective), I may also mention that my mission president was full aware of my imperfections. I think the point I am trying to make is that sometimes the rules can get in the way of effectiveness as a missionary. For the record I would not encourage our missionaries to not obey the rules. I would advise that they strictly obey all the rules even the nonsensical ones.

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said: I agree with the idea that some rules are less effective -- perhaps even end up being theoretically detrimental in some cases. But I also believe that obedience brings blessings, and that is even more true when it comes to missionary work. The missionary who strictly follows all "rules" will be more effective as a missionary than the one who blows them off, even if the rules are theoretically less than perfect. See highlighted part. Sometimes the rules make you less effective.

I don't know I was AP and I made my share of mistakes on my mission.

I don't see were I said obedient missionaries hurt missionary work. Some rules hurt the work, and we have trained our missionaries to follow these rules. I gave the example of the 5pm dinner rule. This rules hurts missionary work in my opinion. The obedient missionaries do not I should have worded differently. In fairness I was more of a rebel on my mission and if they had the 5pm dinner rule I would have blown it off.

I didn't say that. Show me where I did and we can have a conversation about it.

1. I have no Idea what this case is worth I'm just throwing out numbers 2. I haven't gone dark but this is a case where PR is only bad for the church, they don't need it and should pay to make it go away 3. maybe you can recommend a forum? I don't frequent so I wouldn't even know where to start 4. What's the question? that muzzling her would be morally and ethically wrong? (assuming she is correct on all counts) I don't know I'm not the morality police.

Maybe 3 million will get it done, I'd lowball her and see where it goes Hence the NDA she talks they take back the money So you think the church has never settled a lawsuit? They cannot criminally prosecute it is a civil case the only thing that can come out of it is money. If it is true the church should deal with it, Bishop should be excommunicated and anyone who knew of or participated in any sort of cover up for Bishop should also be punished accordingly. Lastly I am not an attorney I just play one on TV

If they throw enough money at her she will go away, it's always about the money. 5-6 Million should do it. Then we will see if she stays on her moral high horse.... I agree they are going to have a very difficult time trying to depose his area president. That does not mean they won't try and that just drags the whole thing out.

No I don't I don't think the "church" has done anything even remotely close to an impropriety or immoral. If they pay Denson or whatever her name is it goes away she signs an NDA and problem solved bad press gone it's over. If I was a lawyer for the church I would want to get all of the skeletons out of the closet. Bishop supposedly confessed some sin to his area president when he was a mission president in Argentina, shockingly this guy is still alive, now we don't know what Bishop confessed to but you can bet Densons lawyers want to know. A lot has changed since 1970 something and if similar confessions were made I would want to be in front of it. Search out potential victims and start writing checks instead of getting blindsided 40 years later.

I think the church is addressing these issues. I think that over the last 20 years in particular they have done a wonderful protecting the members. The issue to me that needs to be addressed is training of local leadership. I worked for a fortune 500 company before I landed in my current job and I was in management. Every year they shipped us off for training. All the bases were covered from hiring, to firing, to sexual harassment, to basic leadership skills including how to do presentations, and how to hold effective meetings. At the local level the rubber hits the road, not one time have I ever seen a Bishop receive formal training. People will jump on and say Well the stake president is training the local bishops. Who is training him? where did he learn it? It's on the job training for the most part they are flying by the seat of their pants.

One example, the 5pm dinner rule. This has to be the single most nonsensical rule I have ever heard of, they have since backed off of it for good reason. How are missionaries supposed to build relationships of trust with the members if the only contact they have with them is through meal appointments and they have to be held at a ridiculous hour? The single greatest resource for referrals is from the members but leadership basicly blocked that with this rule. I may also add the 1 hour for dinner rule that they seem to have. I get it if the missionaries have book ended appointments, but if they have no appointments where are they going to better spend their time? knocking on doors at 6pm-7pm when normal people eat dinner? yeah I am sure that will get them in a lot of doors.

Has it? Because as long as her team of lawyers are trying to depose people who knew her, or Bishops area authority while he was mission president in Argentina, or subpoena documents they have exposure. If I was on the church legal team I would call her lawyer and ask for a number that would make this go away. I would also talk to Mr. Bishop and ask if there is anyone else who might come forward. Maybe there isn't which is fine. I would also go to all leading authorities and point blank ask if there are skeletons in the closet so that I can get in front of any future issues and write checks as needed

Maybe not. I agree statistically the number is very small, and as a whole our children are very safe at church. One thing I noticed is that all but a couple of complaints are from the US or westernized countries. The church is now bigger outside the US I suspect that there may be many more of these cases that are just plain unreported. Several of the cases as you move to the later years specifically name bishops for mishandling information that they were given. While in many cases these are good men doing the best they can I think it points to the limited training of our lay clergy. An issue that to my mind needs to be addressed.

I ran across a compilation of legal complaints, news articles and documents that someone had spent a lot of time putting together that detailed alleged sexual abuse by leaders and other people in positions to supervise youth think, scout leaders, etc. I didn't read the who thing as there were hundreds of instances dating from 1959 to about 2014. In some cases the perpetrators went to jail but in many cases there was a complaint and then it went n owhere. My interpretation is that monies were paid and a NDA was signed. INSTANCES_OF_CHILD_SEXUAL_ABUSE_ALLEGEDLY_PERPETRATED_BY_MEMBERS_OF_THE_CHURCH_OF_JESUS_CHRIST_OF_LATTER-DAY_SAINTS-2017-06.pdf

There is much closer monitoring of the missionaries today than there was 22 years ago when I went. I think that it is repressive in a way, and stifles the individual missionaries ability to think for themselves. Now we have a army of drones who live and die by the rules in many cases to the detriment of the people they are serving.

Winnable yes but you can be right and still end up writing a check. The Church does not want or need this kind of negative attention. They will settle as they have in the past, Bishop will be excommunicated and he can be the poster boy for how serious they take these allegations.

So pretty much no one can serve?

I was on our side but your have moved off the reservation with this one.

@Lee Is a new member of the forum, give him a break. Look he and his wife waited, he wants confirmation that now is the right time to have kids. Some people wait, some jump right in on the kid thing I don't think either way is wrong. It's his life, his decision to make and he will bare the consequences if any with regards as to how long they did or didn't wait to have children. It is between him, his wife, and God.

People react to trauma or change in different ways. For some this would be a traumatic event. The parents of this child never told her she was the product of artificial insemination or whatever they did. They probably thought that they had at least a 50/50 chance that she was their natural offspring. When you find out that who you thought was your father actually wasn't that's a big deal. At worst this is traumatic and at best it is a difficult change to wrap your head around. Think about the church essays for some this was a traumatic revelation even though if you wanted to know about it you could.