lostinwater

Thanks @Vort That's true. Though just speaking from those i know, most actually believe the bishop who crosses the line (a minority) speaks for God and so doing anything other than answering the questions asked (appropriate or not) doesn't even register as a viable option. And it's that "i know something is wrong" in the context of "i know this man speaks for God" that creates a "i am a bad person" conclusion. It's just a super sensitive topic that is getting probed into by a person who is often much closer to a stranger than a friend. Anyways, this isn't complaining - i'm just trying to explain where a part of the 22,000+ people who've signed Sam's petition might be coming from.

Thanks. Is everyone certain that this is such a small issue? Because, at least in the small circle of contacts that i maintain, there are a lot of people who are subjected to explicit and unwanted probing by their ecclesiastical leaders. And as far as the tsunami of evil sex education in public schools - i'm curious - people who have kids in the public school systems - what is the curriculum that is being taught? i have looked at a few school district websites and it seems to be mostly abstinence, recommending birth control if you aren't going to be abstinent, and reporting abuse. That was all it was when i was in the public schools - not that long ago - and i'm curious if it has changed.

Wade - you don't really believe that the intent is promoting perversion, do you? i mean, i'm not a fan of one on one bishops interviews (based on the experiences of people i know), but i don't think people who are wake up every day intending to cause the damage i have observed because of them. And everyone knows that Sam Young has four daughters, more than one of which were actively probed with explicit questions (way beyond the simple "do you keep the law of chastity" one) without Sam's knowledge, right? That he didn't just pluck a cause out of a hat and decide to forego working professional for a few months, starve himself 3 weeks, and lose all his church friends as part of an adult temper tantrum?

Thanks. i don't know exactly where the line is. You've got everything from a child with a pre-existing relationship with the bishop whose interview helps them release and work through some very deep thing the child would never think of disclosing to their parents to a super sensitive person whose interaction with their ecclesiastical leader slides into a horrifically traumatic blunt force extraction whose content resembles a job interview for a prostitute (except in this case, it's a child or young adult rather than a prostitute). i tend to think Sam is advocating for the latter side of that spectrum (which i can tell you is not all that rare). Though i agree that a policy crafted entirely by Sam is not going to address everyone with the opposite experience. Similar to you, i don't know how successful one will be in attempting to encode common sense into policies. But maybe the best thing is to shed a little bit of light on the experiences of those on the bad end of this spectrum. And however much one disagrees with Sam's methods, or the extreme nature of some of his supporters, he *is* doing that. i can't imagine your average bishop isn't realizing he needs to exercise more caution in things like this. And at least from where i sit, i think that's a good thing. Not just for some of those who have been subjected to some pretty horrible experiences, but also for TCOJCOLDS. A massive scandal would be tremendously damaging to TCOJCOLDS's reputation. And your last paragraph - are you referring to Brother Sam, or Brother Brigham? i might actually agree with you on that one....

Honestly curious as to your opinion - especially given you work with this kind of thing on a day to day basis and are far closer to it than me. i am not against letting ecclesiastical leaders help someone keep the law of chastity, but my experience has been that anything other than a "yes, i keep the law of chastity" sends everyone into a incredibly explicit rabbit hole. And it's often a rabbit hole that nobody wants to go down, but everyone feels like they have to go down. Or sometimes the bishop just skips right to the explicit topics (certainly not saying every bishop does this, but i don't think it's all that rare). i haven't just read horror stories about what happens - like the most ridiculously explicit stuff - but i know some of the people in these horror stories. i don't know that i have a good answer that works for everyone, but speaking from your experience, how should bishops handle someone who says "No, i haven't kept the law of chastity." How should that conversation go from there?

Thanks. i guess one could debate until the end of time about how much of what i call history isn't history, or how much of the history people who say they know the history actually know, or how you define terms like "believe", "know", or "ignore". But wading through all that subjectivity, i'd say that yes, i do think it's possible.

i am well rebuked. You are right - that is sort of what my words conveyed. Not what i meant. i guess that what i was attempting to convey is that if you believe TCOJCOLDS is the one and only true church, it is absurd to let the details of it's history pull you away from it. But that if you don't have that underlying belief, then it seems almost as absurd to ignore the details of the history. So just that the lens through which one interprets history is very much affected by how one views the larger picture. i didn't mean to convey that anyone who believed was a person who hadn't looked into things, was ignoring things, or didn't understand how things really might have been, etc., i owe everyone here an apology for not being as clear as i should have been on that. And i appreciate the correction.

@Vort and @JohnsonJones Thank-you for such detailed responses. i don't quite know how to respond. If things were as simple as what you describe, i don't think i'd have many issues. But what you describe does not even closely resemble what i know. And i mean, i guess one can debate as to the details. But since most of apologists of TCOJCOLDS are making up justifications (rather than challenging their existence) for the details that i sense very few people know about, i tend to think that's a plug as to their historical accuracy - even beyond all the documentation. And @Vort - i appreciate the similitude to Jesus - and just allowing for imperfections in the process. That's a very good point. But i am not sure how far it feels right to take that one (speaking just for me). i mean, let's say, hypothetically, i were to find out that the real history was that Jesus slapped the woman taken in adultery a dozen times, called her a filthy prostitute, and then told her to go and sin no more. Or that when Jesus said He did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword, to learn that along with that, He told all of His disciples to go out and cut off the head of one of the scribes, and they refused. Of course, this didn't happen. But my point being is that at some point, the history DOES affect the legitimacy of claims being made. But really, i guess it comes down to what one believes. If you believe that Mr. Nelson is a prophet, that this really is God's church, then you absolutely should ignore all the imperfections. Maybe it's all the books i've listened to. But just hearing people in other religions justify things any reasoning would say are wrong with the same logic a member uses to tell me why i should ignore my own conscience. It just doesn't feel right to me. i think it's true that TCOJCOLDS is not a half-way house. You're either in, out, or getting torn in two. Got to choose. And even if i chose to pretend, God would know it. And i don't know how much that would mean to Him. But i do think i'm obligated to keep an open mind and continue looking at things and be willing to change if that ever feels right. That, i suppose, is something God can always work with. But in the meantime, there's a passage from A Man for All Seasons that i think describes how i feel. And i believe that everyone here is truly following their own consciences also - so please don't take it the wrong way. DUKE: Oh, confound all this! I'm not a scholar. I don't know if the marriage was lawful or not... but ---- it, Thomas, look at these names. Why can't you do as I did and come with us for fellowship? MORE: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience... and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

Thanks @JohnsonJones This is very curious to me. Just the idea that it is either all lies/unreliable or what is true is already known by everyone. Honestly, i've found the exact opposite to be true. That it's actually not all lies, and that most people simply did not know about it. i mean, i did the full 9 yards. i did the full 9 yards like 13 dozen times and never heard about any of it. i mean, maybe the most generic outlines. But i really don't think it would be a stretch to say i was discouraged, in the strongest language, to avoid looking in depth into it. And maybe the depth is the difference. i think everyone knows Joseph practiced polygamy - but i'm not sure many know exactly how. i knew that some people left Joseph, but i'd always accepted the "they were prideful sinners" narrative. And i don't think it's just me or those like me. i've seen people in the upper echelons of CES that felt totally blindsided. Bishops that felt totally blindsided. People of every stripe. And really, it isn't that this stuff happened (or may have happened). i listened to the F2F w/ Elder Cook - and the historian there i think said something that's very reasonable - that the "past is a foreign land, where they do things differently." And that we shouldn't be too quick to judge. Heaven knows my own personal history wouldn't be the smoothest or most inspiring of reads. But - at least in my opinion - the claims TCOJCOLDS makes rely upon a series of preconceptions about the nature of the people and the processes that brought it into existence. And a dig into the history books - at least for me and tens of thousands of others i know, turns many of those conceptions from stone into dust. And i don't know - i really get the feeling like the leadership sort of knows that things would get real rough if people knew all the details, and so goes out of their way to encourage people not to look into it. Is that wrong? That's not a straight-forward answer i guess. i'm not a person that believes an organization has any compunction to constantly scrub the face of every person that enters the walls of their houses of worship with their rags of old and dirty history. That's entirely unreasonable, IMO. But should they justify their earth-shattering truth claims with a narrative that bears only a passing resemblance to the history of things, and classify any source of material that paints a different version of things as "anti" stuff to avoid? Anyways, i'm going to listen to this Saints book and see how it compares. i think that's an incredibly important thing to do - to hear the history from more than one point of view. If anything, i probably need to listen to more things that talk good about TCOJCOLDS's history - since i know i already have some biases in this regard. If anyone has any recommendations, i'd be open to hearing about them.

@Petty3 - i am so sorry. i really believe people are worth way more to God than whether or not they have a temple recommend for their church. As far as sin, i think God gives people what they need. That's not always in line with what they want, and is only coincidentally related to what religious leaders tell people that they deserve. And i've never known a person engaged in self harm yet that needed more guilt and shame and fear of a wrathful God heaped upon them. People focus a lot on preventing suicides - but i think maybe even more than the suicide itself, it's the pain and despair and self harm that leads up to it that are the worst things. A person who doesn't harm themselves or take their own lives merely because they are afraid of a wrathful judgment is not that much less of a tragedy in my view. i'd second @LiterateParakeet in saying that whoever this person is should find a counselor that specializes in self harm and suicidal ideation. This has long since passed the levels a bishop can handle by themselves. i'd also recommend this person find someone they trust to stay with them whenever they are feeling significant distress. Assuming they are in Utah County - or anywhere in Utah - please download the SafeUT app on their phone. It was designed and created by a mother who lost her daughter to suicide and provides instant access to a variety resources - which no doubt include counselors specialized in handling this kind of thing. They can actually contact this lady also through her website, or through facebook - i know she has helped many. They have a 3 digit national suicide prevention hotline in the works, but i don't think it's been completed as yet. http://livehannahshope.org/mobile-apps/ And the other thing i'd say - these aren't the kind of problems that can be solved by being "better" - attending the temple, serving more, etc., - please, please, please, tell this person not to try and solve them this way. Everything i've seen indicates this just makes them worse.

Thanks @Vort i'm treading a fine line here in terms of not posting material that would be considered "anti". But, i think big ones are the character of Joseph Smith and other early leaders, evolving first vision accounts, the historicity of the BOM/BOA, etc., - i'd post sources that go through this in great detail - and in great detail, but i'd be breaking forum rules doing so. My guess is these won't qualify as good examples for you - and i respect that. As far as the claims they struggle to reconcile - maybe it would be more accurate to say the claims whose explanation/reconciliation, as provided by TCOJCOLDS has been insufficient for many. Mainly just the idea that something as unacceptably and fundamentally flawed as many people see their leaders, canon, policies, etc., as being - can be God's one true church on the earth. Anyways, obviously, i'm not speaking for non-doubting members. i'm talking about people like @myrmidon and many others. And i could and should have done a better job of saying that in my earlier post - rather than posting as if the narrative has been destroyed for everyone, for that would definitely not be true.

TCOJCOLDS makes some profound claims. Those claims i think - at least to a large degree - have been grounded in the narrative they've enjoyed (trying to use respectful terms here) up until a few years ago. That narrative is now getting blown to bits. And the people who are doing the blowing up don't really care if it ever gets put together again - in fact, i don't think it would be at all inaccurate to say they are trying to burn the whole thing to the ground - just because they feel like they have been so deceived (just talking about their feelings). i don't know if TCOJCOLDS is going to be able to stop people blowing it up, discretely disassemble and then reassemble the whole thing - while all the while keep their very profound truth claims standing upright. It's quite the ask - and i'm glad i'm not in the shoes of the leadership in Salt Lake right now. i really believe they are doing their best - and just about everything i've heard about them indicates they are gracious to a fault. But TCOJCOLDS doesn't claim to just be gracious and good - they claim a *lot* more than that - and they are now having to reconcile what they claim they are with their history.

@JohnsonJones - this is a wonderful idea for a post. And i will say that one thing i appreciate about you is that your posts combine flexibility, pragmatism, personal experience, humility, and wisdom. Finding those all in one place is a rare thing indeed. You remind me a lot of my Dad, TBH. @MormonGator - i know your degree was in English - but i think you might have inadvertently minored in conflict resolution. i don't know if forums/threads can explode with tension - but without your presence, we'd surely find out. @Vort - i think you dislike me a little less than when i first started here . It was hard work, and definitely worth it. i've come to appreciate your no-nonsense approach more than i did initially @pam - providing the space, and creating a culture that accepts alternative views @wenglund - you've been willing to engage in a meaningful way. i have seen an element of pragmatism hiding underneath your orthodoxy - and that's been very enlightening. @zil - you wit is as sharp as your fountain pens (they're really sharp, right?). You blend wisdom and a pleasantly sarcastic humor in all your posts that i appreciate. And you go out of your way to welcome everyone new into the forums. @LiterateParakeet - you're one smart bird! Cheerful, sensitive, and pure nice. Your gentle presence of the forums is much valued. @Grunt - our viewpoints don't align - but i tend to think much of what i say comes from a perspective that trivializes and then criticizes the things that brought me to where i'm at. And you remind me that's not fair - which i appreciate. @anatess2 - you're the person every kid wished they had as a parent. i love listening to your stories of raising your kids. Your perspectives from a foreign country and Catholic church are ones i really appreciate. @Traveler - you're viewpoints are very well thought through - and you've got the logic to back it up. @askandanswer - i love your humor. A person who jokes with you is a reminder that people can still be amicable while disagreeing. @Sunday21 - You're genuinely excited about TCOJCOLDS. You are a reminder to me that it is largely good simply because people like you participate in it. @Just_A_Guy and @NeuroTypical- i have to watch my posts around you two . i have to think through what i am saying - and that's a good thing. @Anddenex - you forgave my spouting off when i should have kept my mouth shut - even when there was no reason why you should have. @Rob Osborn - i don't think faith is an abstract and malleable concept to you. It's something you back up and defend. And as someone who is conflict averse to a fault, it's something i really respect. @Jane_Doe - You share helpful resources - and many of ones you've shared have been excellent - and ones i've never read. And you live in Wyoming - which is like an automatic level of awesomeness. And everyone else here - i appreciate your putting up with me and my snowflakely wishy-washy-ness.

Good question - that i don't have a good answer to. Every person who says "don't judge" means something different. For me, i think it involves assuming that person is a good person with good motives. That's pretty hard to do - and i usually don't do it. Knowing that is weakness of mine, i think for me not judging then also involves keeping my mouth shut about 95% of the time. And also going back and apologizing for 80% of the 5% of the time i say something and then realize i ought to not have said anything at all. And i'm also trying to get better at not assuming that my perception of God and Jesus and what They want for that person is 100% accurate.

My horse could swim at the time (you know - evolution, and all that).

Thanks @Vort i think this statement you made clarifies. "I said nothing about an "emotional witness". I spoke of a testimony, which is a revelatory or spiritual witness -- a far different thing." It's not been my experience that revelatory/spiritual witnesses can be accurately classified/separated from emotional witness/experiences. But if that is how someone sees it, then i see how you could make the statements you did. As far as God and Jesus, i definitely don't think there is much of a historical argument for Jesus not existing. However, there are some pretty strong challenges on how much one can trust the sources that wrote the bible - and how much what they wrote is just a reflection of their own biases. Challenges that include material that made it past the JST. Actually, this understanding of just how the bible was created and has evolved over time has helped me tremendously in taking things with a bit more salt than i had in the past. Anyways, appreciate your willingness to clarify. i don't share the same beliefs, but you explaining things further helps me understand how you could make the statements you did and still find them as being internally consistent with one another.

i don't mean this to be argumentative. But i really don't understand this. On what basis is it obviously true if history doesn't matter? How can history matter (for validating it's very profound assertions) and yet at the same time not matter (for invalidating it's very profound assertions)? Or is the emotional witness enough to make any troubling history like this an irrelevant detail? It just seems like a really one-way street. Honestly, i question what the difference is between faith and persistent delusion. And i'm talking as much about myself anyone. i mean, i'll defend the concepts of God and Jesus even when someone else presents me with evidence to the contrary. And in fairness, the evidence they present is probably largely historically accurate. Apologies in advance if i am misinterpreting what you were trying to convey (this is likely).

Apologies - thank-you for the reminder. My error.

Thanks Wade. Yes, unfortunately, i understand (but respect) what you meant to convey now.

+1 My guess is TCOJCOLDS's lawyers did their job very efficiently. There's never anything compassionate about a bunch of highly capable lawyers who are paid handsomely to represent and advance the best interests of their client. Probably she is stuck with her legal fees. Given that there seems to be a lot of evidence (ie taped confession) that he did molest her, i don't know that i can fault her doing this - and most definitely not for wanting to do it. If a man rapes you, the organization he works for covers it all up, refuses to apologize, defamatory information about you gets leaked, and then you are stuck with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. But as has been beaten to death on this forum already, nobody knows what transpired for sure, other than the people who were there, and God. Truly, to anyone who wonders, this is why most people never try to bring the people who sexually assaulted them to any kind of earthly justice. But as far as effectiveness of what she did, i don't know. There's no quicker way to kill a person's willingness to thoughtfully consider what you are saying than reinforcing their belief that you are one of the evil apostate world that is out trying to persecute them.

Thanks Wade. i guess i took from your post that you were saying that religion (any sect) is a means to the end. And that concept is, at least in my opinion, the arch-enemy of any organized sect - because it calls into question the importance of the differences they use as reasons why everyone needs to redirect their money, effort, and time, towards that particular organization. But i think i must have misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

Beautifully said. This ought to be canonized! How many hearts it would help heal.

Thanks Wade. And when i talked about compartmentalizing and rationalization, i'm as guilty of that as anyone. Personally, i tend to think there's more to the Book of Mormon than most people who leave are comfortably admitting (i'm looking at myself). And at the same time way more flaws (on a totally fundamental level) than the average TCOJCOLDS apologist or member wants to admit. You can let intellectualism whittle your beliefs right down to an animalistic-driven kind of atheism - which makes the world look like one heck of a terrible, senselessly horrific place. Everyone seems to draw their line in the sand and compartmentalizes and rationalizes to protect their belief/faith. And that's much less of a bad thing than secularism makes it out to be. Just my opinion, but it seems to come down to personal choice - usually based on an emotional feeling - and then finding evidence that corroborates that. Regardless, i respect people who treat others as well as you do - in or out of TCOJCOLDS. For me, that is where the rubber meets the road - a true sign of what the religion that person adheres to has wrought within them.

Thanks @Traveler Honest question - do you think the people who leave see it the same way? i'm guessing not - and assuming that's correct, do you think they've just sold themselves a false narrative to justify a desire to sin and not forgive? i used to think same as you - that everyone who left must have been sinning, or have chosen to be offended. But after experiencing this myself, and talking with hundreds of others who've left - that seems to me to almost never be the case. i know you are very analytical in how you approach how you view things - and it's fascinating to me that this is the conclusion you would have come to. i respect it of course - especially because i don't interact with the same people you do - but it's just really interesting to me.

Just my feeling from all the interactions i've had with others, but i think most people leave TCOJCOLDS because of the massive gap between what it claimed it was, and what it actually was (or at least what it's real history and inner workings were/are), when they actually investigated it in great detail. Not everyone comes to the same conclusion when analyzing the meaning of the data, and some people are more able to compartmentalize or rationalize than others, but i think for the average person leaving, that's the main one.