Troubled: Sexuality and the Church

[gree0232]

Funny; I was just wondering the same thing.

The elephant in the room is that we seem to be approaching this from a vast philosophical difference. You seem to believe that horrors in one's personal history excuse that person from accountability for all manner of unacceptable behaviors thereafter; that rape utterly destroys a person's agency. I--and, I daresay, the bulk of the other participants here, and the Church itself--acknowledge that history can mitigate such behavior; but we reject your implicit assertion that history can or should excuse it.

Oi, vey. I'm sure that based on our respective professions we could make all manner of ugly assertions about each other. So let's just stick with the arguments and lay off the personal attacks, shall we?

A person who persists in sin may be emotionally damaged--perhaps even clinically ill with a diagnosable condition--and is obviously in need of compassion. But "repentance" is, by definition, "change". A person who cannot or will not stop sinning is, by definition, unrepentant.

gree, I love you man; but seriously--snap out of it. No one here is making that argument. Let's tone down the melodrama and focus on the problem the Church is actually facing.

How do you make a process "transparent" without also making it "public"?

You were not met with indifference. You were met with an invitation to submit a specific policy proposal, an observation as to why the proposal you offered might be problematic, an anecdote of my personal experience with bishops, and a statement that - yes - sin still equals sin, and God nearly always expects people to use the full repentance process He has outlined, regardless of their personal histories. I even acknowledged the possibility that there may be very rare temporary exceptions.

But you still came out swinging. So I repeat the question asked by Eowyn and others:

What, specifically, are you looking for here?

As individuals, you're right.

As a Church? You are very, very wrong. Excommunication for people who will not stop sinning, is scripturally mandated.

I've already talked about the policies that exist, which you ignored. If a bishop is bound and determined to act like a goon, one more written policy from Salt Lake isn't going to make a difference.

#1 - Excommunication is not talked about in the scripture. The scriptural references are to 'caste out' those who will not repent. It says absolutely nothing about the formal process of doing so.

#2 - You seem to think that justice is about castigation and blame with no place for mercy, context, or understanding. You are simply wrong.

As I have pointed out the adulterous woman is not ... excommunicated or stoned ... even though she falls short of the church's standards for repentance in that she does not come voluntarily and confess her sin. She is drug before a 'judge' who then grants mercy ... which you say is incompatible with the church?

As per the vice president, that is simply malarkey.

Indeed, does King David not commit both adultery and murder with Bathsheba? And yet he is not excommunicated? He is certainly subject to discipline. I daresay his sins are quite a bit higher up the sin tree than fornication.

In fact, the very situation I saw, a woman placed before an ... imperfect judge is indeed addressed in our scripture. In fact, its D&C 101: 81-95

80 And for this purpose have I established the aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the bshedding of blood.

81 Now, unto what shall I liken the children of Zion? I will liken them unto the aparable of the woman and the unjust judge, for men ought always to bpray and not to faint, which saith—

82 There was in a city a judge which feared not God, neither regarded man.

83 And there was a widow in that city, and she came unto him, saying: Avenge me of mine adversary.

84 And he would not for a while, but afterward he said within himself: Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

85 Thus will I liken the children of Zion.

86 Let them importune at the afeet of the judge;

87 And if he heed them not, let them importune at the feet of the governor;

88 And if the governor heed them not, let them importune at the feet of the president;

89 And if the president heed them not, then will the Lord arise and come forth out of his ahiding place, and in his fury vex the nation;

90 And in his hot displeasure, and in his fierce anger, in his time, will cut off those wicked, unfaithful, and aunjust bstewards, and appoint them their portion among chypocrites, and dunbelievers;

91 Even in outer darkness, where there is aweeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

92 Pray ye, therefore, that their ears may be opened unto your cries, that I may be amerciful unto them, that these things may not come upon them.

93 What I have said unto you must needs be, that all men may be left without aexcuse;

94 That wise men and rulers may hear and know that which they have never aconsidered;

95 That I may proceed to bring to pass my act, my astrange act, and perform my work, my strange work, that men may bdiscern between the righteous and the wicked, saith your God.

Amazingly, that section lists nothing about listing someone struggling with pain and called them a recidivist fornicator and excommunicating them. It does not say to castigate them as a liar because they speak something that makes you uncomfortable. It does not say to respond to difficult questions by assuming that someone has an anti-Mormon agenda and attacking them.

Nor does it say to make comments so disparaging of abuse that, were I to make the comments you did yesterday in profession, I would be relieved immediately.

A I should not find a better understanding of trial and tribulations of abuse in the military than I do in my church - which is born of the compassion, mercy, and deep love of ALL God's Children.

The scriptural referrence is pretty clear that when we judge, particularly while using the authority of God, we do so while seeking a full knowledge of context and circumstance - that our decisions be made in righteousness ... a failure to do so produces nashing of teeth and frustration EVEN IN THOSE CASTE INTO OUTER-DARKNESS.

The idea that we should treat rape victims EXACTLY THE SAME as an immature fornicator is simply wrong.

Its no different that treating a man who steals bread to feed his starving family the same as Bernie Madoff. If we are incapable of making such discernment we have no business pretending that we are the rightful judges of Zion.

#3 - I am going to say this again because you are clearly either not comprehending or simply do not wish to hear it. Until you do you have no business pretending that your judgement on church policy is anything more than an opinion.

Abuse has consequences - horrible consequences. One of those consequences is deep, deep pain. Until you have experienced it, and it is clear you have not, you have no idea of the powerful influence it can exert over someone ... particularly those who are young ... particularly those who lack the maturity and wisdom to connect the dots and understand what is happening.

As wise judges of Zion, we have a duty ... a righteous obligation to help those stuck in horrific pain with something a bit more merciful, compassionate, and potentially helpful than castigation. We owe it to them to seek out the dots and connect them and determine whether the ROOT CAUSE of a sin is willful non-compliance or whether there are other factors at play.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, coping with the aftermath of abuse is doubly dambed difficult. Again, I tell you truthfully, it is harder than going into combat and watching your friends be killed. That we understand - we understand that going into battle entails risks and we STILL struggle with what we see. Imagine the same level violence, perhaps greater in terms of sexual violation, thrust upon those who have no idea about what or why something happened?

I tell you again, and in plain English, that struggling with the aftermath of abuse is something that can have a powerful influence on your agency. That effect is even greater when we are unaware of influence.

We as judges certainly need to ensure that as these people slip there are consequences and discipline to HELP THEM RETURN TO THE PATH AND MAINTAIN REQUIRED DISCIPLINE. We also owe them referral to professional counseling, mentor ship, if what they are struggling with is rooted in pain rather than simple disobedience.

#4 - I did a little research last night trying to figure out the discipline process. As I suspected there is no required check in the process to help identify root causes. That is, IMHO, an easily remedied mistake.

In fact, a young lady - and I have unfortunately met more than a few - who was raped or otherwise abused is in no position to defend herself, at least not without counsel - which you do not get in the church's disciplinary process. Abuse is not rational - nor, very often, is the reaction to it. Ergo, when a young person find themselves jumping from sexual relationship to sexual relationship for reasons they cannot explain and cannot stop?

Its a safe bet that there is something else going on. Something not entirely rational. Before we caste those MOST IN NEED OF MERCY out, we owe it to them to help them connect the dots and see if we cannot bring them out of that cycle of pain.

Indeed, there are members of the church who have suffered through this process and returned to the path of righteousness through healing. Any Bishop, upon discovering that there is a potential abuse issue, could as easily seek this person's counsel (judges often do this) and if necessary assign them as a mentor.

Again, and which you appear willfully blind too, if NECESSARY, discipline might still include disfellowship and excommunication, but we owe those most in need of help ... well, help - rather than just righteous judgement and castigation.

#5 - I was a little surprised at the veracity of some of the reaction to this question. Let me re-phrase that - I was shocked.

There is a reason that the testimonies of the young lady feature prominently among our critics. They are effective in undermining the church.

Granted, I am just a big, dumb infantryman, but I do understand a think or two about dealing with an adversary. For example, when our enemies adopted IED's, oh how unfair we cried. Why don't they stand and fight with HONOR!?! Because fighting well trained infantry, with artillery, Apache helicopters, fighter jets with a rifle is a very good way to lose and lose quickly. Our enemies adapted a technique that was more effective in resistance.

The same thing happens with our critics. When they find a line that reduces our spokesmen to pitiful claims of lair and wave of the hand dismissals ... they have a pretty effective tool do they not?

Now, as a church, when some is bashing us with an effective tool we have two choice. We can scream pitifully against it and nash our teeth about it ... or, like IED's, we can acknowledge that our critics are using this tool and find ways to reduce or eliminate its effectiveness.

If we find ourselves stung by criticism, we owe that stinging rebuke a solid examination.

We may be judges of Israel, but that does not mean that we are free from judgement of our own shortcomings. Indeed, the VERY LAST LINE - our bottom line in the Articles of Faith is:

"If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

I think helping abuse victims overcome the pain and hurt of abuse is a little more praiseworthy than castigating them for their struggles.

And the entire point is that there is an easy policy change we can add to handbook #1 that help our Bishops and higher seek after abuse with the proper treatments ... including, when necessary and appropriate, discipline.

The correct people to make that decision remains the Bishop, as a church, our COLLECTIVE duty is to set them up to be successful and wise judges of Zion.

[gree0232]

I haven't read all the posts, so I apologize in advance if I repeat anything already said. I'm sitting here in the San Francisco airport waiting for my flight, so don't have as much time as I'd like.

Repenting of a serious sexual sin definitely can be intimidating. It doesn't matter what led up to the sin, (being raped is not a sin), but the behavior afterwards (whatever it may be), may be sinful and any sin needs to be repented from, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. All sins must be repented of, for no unclean thing can be in God's presence. So, unless we're repentant, no matter what the sin, none of us will enter into God's Kingdom.

Fornication requires going to the Bishop. And, yes, it is extremely hard to admit to such a sin to your Bishop. There is the fear of being disfellowshipped or excommunicated. It's embarrassing to refrain from taking the Sacrament with your fellow ward members watching. It's embarrassing to tell the Relief Society President (or Sunday School Teacher) that you're unable to give a prayer in class after being asked.

But, the repentant person goes to the Bishop willingly and humbly, ready to accept whatever it takes to be "right" in the Lord's view. Even if the Bishop is a "letter of the law" individual, and deems that excommunication is the answer, then the repentant individual accepts that with humility and gratitude in order to get their spiritual life back on track. The truly humble and repentant person will want that burden lifted from their shoulders. They will do whatever it takes to be clean again, no matter what the circumstances were that led to their sin. How wonderful it is when an excommunicated person comes back into the waters of baptism and washed clean. I have seen this happen. It is a a beautiful testament that no matter what we have done in our lives, we can be made clean.

We must take responsibility for our own sins, own up to it, don't give excuses, and get our sins taken care of. The Lord knows our hearts. He knows our struggles. He knows our sorrows. He knows our weaknesses. He knows our trials. He knows how we have been hurt by others. He knows it all. There will be no mistakes made with His judgment. If we have been told that confession to the Bishop is required for sexual sin, then do it. Don't put it off because of fear.

If the unrepentant person leaves the church because they can't handle going to the Bishop for fear of being disfellowshipped or excommunicated, then they have made a decision to leave anyway. If they still have a testimony and yet stay away from the church, they are hurting their chances to grow in the Gospel, and of having the Spirit to be a constant companion. The constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is a wonderful blessing. Isn't that what we should all want? After baptism and confirmation, we are given the promise of having the Comforter with us always, if we do our part. If we don't do our part, we have no promise. The truly repentant person will do whatever it takes, with a humble and contrite spirit, to have the Holy Ghost with them again. They will gratefully accept whatever path they need to take in order to have that awful burden of guilt removed from them.

That is just it. Those who are most unable to do this are abuse victims.

I have seen too many rape victims struggle to think that this is a black and white issue. It is not about a failure to recognize standards ... though it certainly is about a failure to adhere to them in many cases. And that just makes the entire process MUCH worse. There is tremendous guilt, there is genuine repentance, and then ... there is another slip for reasons you cannot explain. Already questioning your self worth? What happens when you are repeatedly slipping with standards before God himself and you do not know why and cannot stop?

That is the cycle that young abuse victims get trapped in. They know what worthiness is, but the aftermath of assault often totally denudes self worth, and seeking is desperately, they often find 'worth' in the arms of men who whisper sweetness in their ears to take advantage of them. And even that makes it worse. The guilt of the assault, the guilt of the failing, of having been taken advantage of by an unscrupulous man ... I watched this happen with a very good friend when I was younger and had no idea what the heck was happening.

My own experience with abuse shed light on what was happening and some understanding of the situation.

A case in point, in my last ward, when a young lady made a very inappropriate pass at me, it was exactly the understanding of that cycle that allowed me to know that there was a little more going on than merely an inappropriate advance. It turns out that she was raped by her prom date a few years earlier, and is so often the case, because her attacker valued only her flesh ... that is all she thought I would value as well.

In that case she went to the Bishop. She did not confess the assault. That guilt and self blame remains and I have no doubt that it will again manifest itself in something inappropriate.

We as a church are more than a court. We are the body of Christ, his agents on this earth, and we owe abuse victims help in identifying and breaking this process.

I have witnessed close friends struggle with this process, I have myself struggled with this process, and I cannot believe for a second that I was brought through that process - saved from the worst effects of it by a timely prayer and intervention of the Holy Spirit - with understanding of the causes and effects of the process ... to do nothing with that knowledge and understanding.

A case in point, in the military we have removed as many barriers to the reporting process as possible, for example declaring ancillary 'sins' associated with sexual assault a form of immunity. We will no pursue them. If a young woman was not 21 and drinking when she was assaulted ... we will not pursue the underage drinking, which has stiff penalties in the military, including lose of rank, pay, and extra duty. To not report a sexual assault because you fear grave punishment for drinking? Its happened, and the sexual assault only comes to light when the discipline process is well underway ... very often AFTER the Soldier has been separated from service under other than honorable conditions. We have acknowledged in the military that this is grave injustice and failing. Correctly so IMHO.

For example, and relevant to the discussion, coping with abuse may very well drive someone to all kinds of actions and antics. It may still be necessary to separate them from service for ... the good of the service and maintaining the good order and discipline of the ranks. The church has the same task. Yet we, as the military, separate them involuntarily under other the honorable conditions, these victims, often veterans, lose benefits ... including access to the very counseling that will enable them seek and receive treatment. We have acknowledged that this is a mistake, and that, should it be necessary to separate, we can acknowledge the abuse and separate under honorable conditions - ensuring the Soldier has access to required resources when they are ready. Its a simple change. Its a little bit of compassion that is not just best for the Soldier, its best for the Service in that it denudes the legitimate criticism of our critics. We demonstrate that we listen and act on wise counsel, and when necessary, appropriately change policy based on information. That is a good thing.

I think our church, understanding this process, can remove similar barriers. Yes, fornication is wrong and subject to discipline, but we owe those struggling with these issues a promise of something more than judgement of them in the struggle.

Again, I say this plainly, Bishops are the correct adjudicators of level of mercy and discipline, but we owe our 'judges' the proper preparation in seeking out appropriate context and the wise application of appropriate levels of mercy and discipline.

Having met one of the young ladies who was separated from the church under conditions very similar to those I know have happened in the military ... seeing these kinds of stories line up in our critics ... well, there is something to the criticism. The fix isn't terribly difficult.

Pride. It causes more than fornication, as per Ezra Taft:

"Pride is a sin that can readily be seen in others but is rarely admitted in ourselves. Most of us consider pride to be a sin of those on the top, such as the rich and the learned, looking down at the rest of us. (See 2 Ne. 9:42.) There is, however, a far more common ailment among us—and that is pride from the bottom looking up. It is manifest in so many ways, such as faultfinding, gossiping, backbiting, murmuring, living beyond our means, envying, coveting, withholding gratitude and praise that might lift another, and being unforgiving and jealous."

Edited March 24, 2013 by gree0232

[selek]

"Pride is a sin that can readily be seen in others but is rarely admitted in ourselves. Most of us consider pride to be a sin of those on the top, such as the rich and the learned, looking down at the rest of us. (See 2 Ne. 9:42.) There is, however, a far more common ailment among us—and that is pride from the bottom looking up. It is manifest in so many ways, such as faultfinding, gossiping, backbiting, murmuring, living beyond our means, envying, coveting, withholding gratitude and praise that might lift another, and being unforgiving and jealous."

Wise words. Perhaps YOU should consider them with the emphasis above.

For all your words, for all your attempt to drown out and ignore the very real criticisms and flaws in your mantra, you have yet to address one fundamental truth.

For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that the problem you are so busily decrying is endemic to the Church.

For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that we, as a people, actually deny compassion to the penitent.

For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that we, as a faith, are NOT compassionate and understanding.

Your "say-so" is not good enough.

Your claims to hold a Temple recommend carry no weight.

Your (often contradictory) pretensions to high military rank are meaningless. (I personally don't care if you're the second coming of George S. Patton, you're still wrong).

You are an anonymous critic on a message board, citing anti-Mormon propaganda in order to attack and belittle the Church as a whole.

For six pages now, you have engaged in fault-finding, back-biting, and made blanket (and bigoted) claims against the Church and Mormon people as a whole- but you've provided zero evidence to support your claims.

We don't know you from Adam- and you've given us no reason to take your shrill claims at face value.

For six pages now, you have come here, offering us back-biting, gossip, rumor-mongering, and hysteria.

For six pages now, you have ignored serious and substantive responses in favor of repeating your mantra.

For six pages now, you have answered reason with shrill hyperbole.

You have attacked our brethren viciously, and offered no proof to substantiate your claims.

For six pages now, you have accused us- solely for the crime of not agreeing with you- of supporting and condoning brutality.

For six pages now, you have accused us- simply because we will not bow and scrape before your idol- of turning our backs on the Lord and upon our brothers and sisters.

And you have offered not a single shred of verifiable evidence to back up your claims.

No names.

No dates.

No citations.

Only the vague handwaing of "well, the critics say..."

You have demonized us as a people, and as a faith, with bitter and hateful caricatures- and steadfastly ignored who we really are.

We, as Latter-day Saints- we, as a people and a faith- are dedicated to bringing all men (and women) to God.

It is our calling and commission to weep with those who mourn, to comfort the afflicted, and lift the downtrodden.

We try very hard to do our best by our brothers and sisters.

And yes- sometimes we fail.

That does not- not for a moment- justify your shrill and hyperbolic rhetoric that the Church as a whole is in need of your correction.

It does not- not for a moment- justify your implication that we as a people have failed to serve those who need our love and compassion.

It does not- not for a moment- justify your hateful screed against the Brethren who are "on the frontlines" everyday trying to minister to their wards to the best of their abilities.

You claim that there is a problem- but you have yet to demonstrate that it is so.

You claim to have a solution- but ignore the very real reasons why "your solution" is both antithetical to the Gospel and might very well be worse than the condition you purport to be treating.

And that is why we do not (and cannot) take you seriously.

Edited March 24, 2013 by selek

[Just_A_Guy]

#1 - Excommunication is not talked about in the scripture. The scriptural references are to 'caste out' those who will not repent. It says absolutely nothing about the formal process of doing so.

Your antipathy for me seems so great that you're getting bogged down in entirely non-substantive semantical hair-splitting. You said:

"We are not admonished to threaten people with excommunication and disfellowship - much less hell. "

I said:

"As individuals, you're right.

As a Church? You are very, very wrong. Excommunication for people who will not stop sinning, is scripturally mandated."

Now you're getting all balled up over whether I used the phrase "excommunicated" or "cast out", as if there's a substantive difference?

#2 - You seem to think that justice is about castigation and blame with no place for mercy, context, or understanding. You are simply wrong.

I've said nothing of the sort. All I've said is that past abuse doesn't give you the right to make an end-run around priesthood authority if you've subsequently committed an offense--or many of them--that, under Church policy, should be resolved through priesthood authority.

As I have pointed out the adulterous woman is not ... excommunicated or stoned ... even though she falls short of the church's standards for repentance in that she does not come voluntarily and confess her sin. She is drug before a 'judge' who then grants mercy ... which you say is incompatible with the church?

Leaving aside the contextual issues in that story (there are some nuances of Jewish law that you're missing, but were a very big part of what happened there): That's exactly how the process is supposed to work: you go before a common judge, who weighs as many factors as a presented to him and then tries to strike an appropriate balance between justice and mercy.

Indeed, does King David not commit both adultery and murder with Bathsheba? And yet he is not excommunicated? He is certainly subject to discipline. I daresay his sins are quite a bit higher up the sin tree than fornication.

David was publicly called to repentance by a prophet of Jehovah, and was thereafter barred from building the temple--whose materials he had assembled. Kinda hard to cast out the sitting king of Israel--but he was certainly subject to priesthood authority.

In fact, the very situation I saw, a woman placed before an ... imperfect judge is indeed addressed in our scripture. In fact, its D&C 101: 81-95 . . .

I don't dispute your larger point that not all bishops will be perfect; but it may be worth noting that the scripture you cite is a re-telling of a parable about an unjust secular judge originally told by Jesus in Luke 18. It has nothing to do with Church discipline.

Nor does it say to make comments so disparaging of abuse that, were I to make the comments you did yesterday in profession, I would be relieved immediately.

What comments? That sin is sin?

The idea that we should treat rape victims EXACTLY THE SAME as an immature fornicator is simply wrong.

I've not said otherwise; except to say that the healing process for both begins with a visit with a priesthood leader.

The scriptural referrence is pretty clear that when we judge, particularly while using the authority of God, we do so while seeking a full knowledge of context and circumstance - that our decisions be made in righteousness ... a failure to do so produces nashing of teeth and frustration EVEN IN THOSE CASTE INTO OUTER-DARKNESS. . . . .

As wise judges of Zion, we have a duty ... a righteous obligation to help those stuck in horrific pain with something a bit more merciful, compassionate, and potentially helpful than castigation. We owe it to them to seek out the dots and connect them and determine whether the ROOT CAUSE of a sin is willful non-compliance or whether there are other factors at play.

WE are not judges in Zion. I am not a judge in Zion. Unless you're a bishop, and haven't disclosed that, then neither are you.

So by what authority can any of us question the judgment of a duly appointed Judge in Zion (two of them, in point of fact), even though we have only one side of the story? You looked into these women's eyes and apparently were able to divine that they fornicated and went through a disciplinary council. Were you also able to divine what they said in their own defense, whether they tried to justify their behavior/impugn the authority of the council, and whether they were willing to accept correction or change their behavior?

I tell you again, and in plain English, that struggling with the aftermath of abuse is something that can have a powerful influence on your agency. That effect is even greater when we are unaware of influence.

I don't doubt it. What I doubt, is that it is generally capable of completely eradicating it.

We as judges certainly need to ensure that as these people slip there are consequences and discipline to HELP THEM RETURN TO THE PATH AND MAINTAIN REQUIRED DISCIPLINE. We also owe them referral to professional counseling, mentor ship, if what they are struggling with is rooted in pain rather than simple disobedience.

#4 - I did a little research last night trying to figure out the discipline process. As I suspected there is no required check in the process to help identify root causes. That is, IMHO, an easily remedied mistake.

The CHI does raise the possibility of bishops, in their capacity as counselors, referring a church member out for professional counseling. See Section 7.2 (2010 edition) generally, and especially 7.2.6 - most bishops I've known are pretty cool about letting you read specific sections of the handbook, so long as you do it there in their office.

Bishops are neither not professionally trained as counselors or as detectives; and as I've pointed out earlier, I think the idea of their specifically digging around for evidence of a rape is VERY problematic.

In fact, a young lady - and I have unfortunately met more than a few - who was raped or otherwise abused is in no position to defend herself, at least not without counsel - which you do not get in the church's disciplinary process.

You're seeing the initial meeting with the bishop as inherently confrontational--which it need not be--and further assuming that every LoC violation triggers formal Church discipline--which it doesn't.

Abuse is not rational - nor, very often, is the reaction to it. Ergo, when a young person find themselves jumping from sexual relationship to sexual relationship for reasons they cannot explain and cannot stop?

Its a safe bet that there is something else going on.

Not necessarily. Modus ponens doesn't work in reverse.

The same thing happens with our critics. When they find a line that reduces our spokesmen to pitiful claims of lair and wave of the hand dismissals ... they have a pretty effective tool do they not?

It's primarily effective among people who are disposed to view Church leaders as ogres, and willing to make up their minds without knowing the entire story. Those people cannot be satisfied. Even if the Church did implement a policy of *always* asking penitents about their histories of abuse--or requiring penitents to seek professional counseling right out of the gate--there will be bishops who don't observe that policy and we'll be right back to square one.

[The Folk Prophet]

Wise words. Perhaps YOU should consider them with the emphasis above.

For all your words, for all your attempt to drown out and ignore the very real criticisms and flaws in your mantra, you have yet to address one fundamental truth.

For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that the problem you are so busily decrying is endemic to the Church.

For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that we, as a people, actually deny compassion to the penitent.

For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that we, as a faith, are NOT compassionate and understanding.

Your "say-so" is not good enough.

Your claims to hold a Temple recommend carry no weight.

Your (often contradictory) pretensions to high military rank are meaningless. (I personally don't care if you're the second coming of George S. Patton, you're still wrong).

You are an anonymous critic on a message board, citing anti-Mormon propaganda in order to attack and belittle the Church as a whole.

For six pages now, you have engaged in fault-finding, back-biting, and made blanket (and bigoted) claims against the Church and Mormon people as a whole- but you've provided zero evidence to support your claims.

We don't know you from Adam- and you've given us no reason to take your shrill claims at face value.

For six pages now, you have come here, offering us back-biting, gossip, rumor-mongering, and hysteria.

For six pages now, you have ignored serious and substantive responses in favor of repeating your mantra.

For six pages now, you have answered reason with shrill hyperbole.

You have attacked our brethren viciously, and offered no proof to substantiate your claims.

For six pages now, you have accused us- solely for the crime of not agreeing with you- of supporting and condoning brutality.

For six pages now, you have accused us- simply because we will not bow and scrape before your idol- of turning our backs on the Lord and upon our brothers and sisters.

And you have offered not a single shred of verifiable evidence to back up your claims.

No names.

No dates.

No citations.

Only the vague handwaing of "well, the critics say..."

You have demonized us as a people, and as a faith, with bitter and hateful caricatures- and steadfastly ignored who we really are.

We, as Latter-day Saints- we, as a people and a faith- are dedicated to bringing all men (and women) to God.

It is our calling and commission to weep with those who mourn, to comfort the afflicted, and lift the downtrodden.

We try very hard to do our best by our brothers and sisters.

And yes- sometimes we fail.

That does not- not for a moment- justify your shrill and hyperbolic rhetoric that the Church as a whole is in need of your correction.

It does not- not for a moment- justify your implication that we as a people have failed to serve those who need our love and compassion.

It does not- not for a moment- justify your hateful screed against the Brethren who are "on the frontlines" everyday trying to minister to their wards to the best of their abilities.

You claim that there is a problem- but you have yet to demonstrate that it is so.

You claim to have a solution- but ignore the very real reasons why "your solution" is both antithetical to the Gospel and might very well be worse than the condition you purport to be treating.

And that is why we do not (and cannot) take you seriously.

You said "for six pages now" twice.

[selek]

You said "for six pages now" twice.

Government math?

I counted nine instances of the phrase- each linked to a separate point.

[gree0232]

Wise words. Perhaps YOU should consider them with the emphasis above.

For all your words, for all your attempt to drown out and ignore the very real criticisms and flaws in your mantra, you have yet to address one fundamental truth.

For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that the problem you are so busily decrying is endemic to the Church.

For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that we, as a people, actually deny compassion to the penitent.

For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that we, as a faith, are NOT compassionate and understanding.

Your "say-so" is not good enough.

Your claims to hold a Temple recommend carry no weight.

Your (often contradictory) pretensions to high military rank are meaningless. (I personally don't care if you're the second coming of George S. Patton, you're still wrong).

You are an anonymous critic on a message board, citing anti-Mormon propaganda in order to attack and belittle the Church as a whole.

For six pages now, you have engaged in fault-finding, back-biting, and made blanket (and bigoted) claims against the Church and Mormon people as a whole- but you've provided zero evidence to support your claims.

We don't know you from Adam- and you've given us no reason to take your shrill claims at face value.

For six pages now, you have come here, offering us back-biting, gossip, rumor-mongering, and hysteria.

For six pages now, you have ignored serious and substantive responses in favor of repeating your mantra.

For six pages now, you have answered reason with shrill hyperbole.

You have attacked our brethren viciously, and offered no proof to substantiate your claims.

For six pages now, you have accused us- solely for the crime of not agreeing with you- of supporting and condoning brutality.

For six pages now, you have accused us- simply because we will not bow and scrape before your idol- of turning our backs on the Lord and upon our brothers and sisters.

And you have offered not a single shred of verifiable evidence to back up your claims.

No names.

No dates.

No citations.

Only the vague handwaing of "well, the critics say..."

You have demonized us as a people, and as a faith, with bitter and hateful caricatures- and steadfastly ignored who we really are.

We, as Latter-day Saints- we, as a people and a faith- are dedicated to bringing all men (and women) to God.

It is our calling and commission to weep with those who mourn, to comfort the afflicted, and lift the downtrodden.

We try very hard to do our best by our brothers and sisters.

And yes- sometimes we fail.

That does not- not for a moment- justify your shrill and hyperbolic rhetoric that the Church as a whole is in need of your correction.

It does not- not for a moment- justify your implication that we as a people have failed to serve those who need our love and compassion.

It does not- not for a moment- justify your hateful screed against the Brethren who are "on the frontlines" everyday trying to minister to their wards to the best of their abilities.

You claim that there is a problem- but you have yet to demonstrate that it is so.

You claim to have a solution- but ignore the very real reasons why "your solution" is both antithetical to the Gospel and might very well be worse than the condition you purport to be treating.

And that is why we do not (and cannot) take you seriously.

You are denyinh the veracity of the story that I brought to a ofrum of my peers because ... you don;t like it.

Noted.

That does not make it true.

And, as you have been ever so illuminating on the disciplinary process, I have been forced to do the research entirely on my own ... where I note that the erstwhile shortcomings I see are indeed ... not there.

I really did not come here to be denounced by a zealot.

I really couldn't care one whit whether your emotional attempt to angrily denounce someone again for the thought crime, i.e. not blindly agreeing with you because you scream, I retain my agency.

I know that girl is telling the truth, and from what I have learned of the discipline process ... its entirely plausible.

I had quite enough of abuse from ex wife, and certainly do not need it from a supposed Mormon for daring to inquire about the discipline process ... when a demonstrated injustice was dumped in my lap.

You disagreement is noted, your condemnation ignored. Now please, carry through on your threat and kindly ignore me.

Or is that too hostile a response to your ever so patient explanation of the process.

We are not lead to repent through fear and anger - perhaps, as you lecture me on the scripture, you would do well to read it and heed yourself. I believe it has a thing or two to say about hypocrisy.

[pam]

Thread closed