Relevation & Inspiration...MTC abuse

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Do you know that I almost... like within one centimeter almost... applied for naturalization because I had this fleeting hopeful dream of being a jury?  Yeah... all these people at my work complain everytime they get asked to present themselves for jury selection and I'm like, I wanna be you.

I have been to jury duty, I don't know, half a dozen times. I have been selected to be seated (empaneled? some legal term) on a jury twice, maybe three times. Once or twice, I was dismissed by the defense counsel, and once I was dismissed by the prosecution. Always a peremptory challenge, never for any actual good reason except they thought this reasonably educated white man wouldn't vote the way they wanted. Welcome to American Justice, 21st-century edition.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Petty3 said:

Anyone can respond and give me their thoughts but I'd especially like to know what @LiterateParakeet and @lostinwater have to say.

I think the reason for my original question about revelation and inspiration is less to do about Joseph Bishop and more about what happened personally in my life.

For about 20 years my dad was having affairs.  He also abused me.  However in all those years he always served in a leadership position...bishopric counselor, high counselor and even bishop.  After it was discovered about the affairs and he was caught he then admitted to them and was excommunicated.   So my question is how was he able to be in those positions.  He was interviewed by a SP to receive those callings.  Why wasn't someone inspired in all those years to know he wasn't worthy.  How many temple recommended interviews did he go to?  

He was able to lie through all those interviews and all those years and no one suspected a thing?  I understand agency and that it was his own choices that were made but really...doesn't there come a time when enough is enough?  

I'll say something that I believe no one else will.  The Church is under condemnation.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng

Quote

In 1832, as some early missionaries returned from their fields of labor, the Lord reproved them for treating the Book of Mormon lightly. As a result of that attitude, he said, their minds had been darkened. Not only had treating this sacred book lightly brought a loss of light to themselves, it had also brought the whole Church under condemnation, even all the children of Zion. And then the Lord said, “And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon

I believe that Joseph was given special dispensation, not only because he was the tool of the restoration, but because people at the time were willing to accept and live by what the Lord provided.  But a parallel to the ancient Israelites repeated. Moses broke the tablets and gave them something less.  They had more light and knowledge than the rest of the world, they still did not have all the light that they COULD have had.  

Similarly, we have much more than the rest of the world as far as light from above.  But we still don't have all that is offered to us because we treat lightly sacred things.

Quote

Can a small number of us bring the whole Church under condemnation because we trifle with sacred things? 

No.  It is a LARGE number of us.  And the converse is also true.  Can a small number doing it right bring us out of condemnation?  No.  The great majority of the Church needs to stop treating lightly sacred things.  That is what will bring us out from condemnation.

But it has to start with just one person.  Let us each be that one person.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Guest

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, Petty3 said:

Anyone can respond and give me their thoughts but I'd especially like to know what @LiterateParakeet and @lostinwater have to say.

I think the reason for my original question about revelation and inspiration is less to do about Joseph Bishop and more about what happened personally in my life.

For about 20 years my dad was having affairs.  He also abused me.  However in all those years he always served in a leadership position...bishopric counselor, high counselor and even bishop.  After it was discovered about the affairs and he was caught he then admitted to them and was excommunicated.   So my question is how was he able to be in those positions.  He was interviewed by a SP to receive those callings.  Why wasn't someone inspired in all those years to know he wasn't worthy.  How many temple recommended interviews did he go to?  

He was able to lie through all those interviews and all those years and no one suspected a thing?  I understand agency and that it was his own choices that were made but really...doesn't there come a time when enough is enough?  

I feel for you, Petty3.  I have a close friend in our ward who has this same experience with her dad, although hers was not affairs and abuse but rather her dad committing pedophilia with his own grandchildren.  It was difficult for me to provide comfort to my friend because this is just so unspeakably evil that I feel there's nothing I can say that would ease her pain and confusion and rebuild her faith.

I believe that time when enough is enough was the time your dad got excommunicated.  The same with my friend's dad.  It took the courage of his children to bring him to task for the evil deeds he has done.  And that was when enough was enough.  I think, speaking from my vast inexperience, that God does not give us more than we can bear and when we cannot bear evil much longer, we will cry out enough is enough and that is when evil becomes weaker until it is brought to task.  But that's just my opinion.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On 3/27/2018 at 8:11 AM, Vort said:

You're saying it's false? Or you're saying it's irrelevant?

In retrospect, I can see that my bias is clouding my view here. I was saying it's common...that when a woman accuses a man of rape people start asking, but what were you wearing, etc.  However, putting my bias aside.......of course, if I were a Bishop or a Branch President, and someone I knew (or thought I knew) to have been dishonest in the past came to me with such a serious accusation, I would be doubtful as well.  Perhaps I would even be dismissive.

However, I think his bias was clouding his judgement just as mine is for me.  The Boy Who Cried Wolf is perhaps (if she really had a history of lying) applicable here....in the sense that the Branch President should have reported the accusation because it is a legal matter, it's really not his choice to simply sit on the information.  

Edited March 28, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

The Boy Who Cried Wolf is perhaps (if she really had a history of lying) applicable here....in the sense that the Branch President should have reported the accusation because it is a legal matter, it's really not his choice to simply sit on the information.

I am no lawyer and certainly might be wrong, but I suspect there were no such mandatory reporting laws in 1984.

[Vort]

And for the record, Ron Leavitt was my and my wife's branch president during our engagement in the 1987-88 time frame, as well as my microbiology professor (back when I was still a microbiology undergrad). I have a rather pronounced positive-slanted bias toward Brother Leavitt. He is plain-spoken to the point of abruptness, but as far as I could tell, he is strictly honest. It goes without saying that he is (was) also extremely intelligent. If he said that Sister ****** was not credible, I personally feel sure that he was saying that for good reason and not simply because he thought she was flaky or didn't like her shoes.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

16 hours ago, Petty3 said:

Anyone can respond and give me their thoughts but I'd especially like to know what @LiterateParakeet and @lostinwater have to say.

I think the reason for my original question about revelation and inspiration is less to do about Joseph Bishop and more about what happened personally in my life.

For about 20 years my dad was having affairs.  He also abused me.  However in all those years he always served in a leadership position...bishopric counselor, high counselor and even bishop.  After it was discovered about the affairs and he was caught he then admitted to them and was excommunicated.   So my question is how was he able to be in those positions.  He was interviewed by a SP to receive those callings.  Why wasn't someone inspired in all those years to know he wasn't worthy.  How many temple recommended interviews did he go to?  

He was able to lie through all those interviews and all those years and no one suspected a thing?  I understand agency and that it was his own choices that were made but really...doesn't there come a time when enough is enough?  

I will send you a PM with my more privately held thoughts.  But for here...

One of my closest friends had a father who was physically abusive.  He also served as a Bishop during that time.  He has died now, but my friend lives in the same town she grew up in and she says people still occasionally tell her how much her dad helped them as a Bishop.  She feels that when he was acting as a Bishop, he was a Bishop.  When he was at home, he was NOT the Bishop.  

For a long time I couldn't understand how she could be so peaceful about the matter.  I think I had to complete my own path to forgiving my abuser.  Now that I have, I can look at her story and better understand.  I think that we are all children of God, and sometimes Satan can get great hold of our hearts, some more than others.  I think Satan  tries especially hard to get ahold of those in Leadership positions, because of the confusion you stated in your post.   But I don't think that any of us, like my friend's dad, are evil through and through.  In fact, I think my friend's dad physically abused his children because he didn't have proper coping skills to deal with his anger and stress, not because he was an evil man.  He had weaknesses to be sure, but also strengths.  The Lord was able to use those strengths.  

But what about his children, or children like you were.  I believe in Christ's power to HEAL.  He can heal you, and He will if you put your hand in His.  He will make you better than you were before.  And you will have skills, and talents you can use to help others, that you would not have had if you had not been through this experience.   

This life is hard...so hard it is unbearable sometimes.  But Christ has the power to heal all wounds and make everything right.  Trust Him.  

Edited to Add:  By mentioning forgiveness, I do NOT mean to imply that it is a "magic bullet" that makes things better.  I believe it is a process, and that healing comes first, then forgiveness.  When the Savior has cleansed the wound so to speak, and the pain and anger has been changed to peace, then space is open for forgiveness.  But it's a journey, and forgiveness is not a short cut. 

Edited March 28, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am no lawyer and certainly might be wrong, but I suspect there were no such mandatory reporting laws in 1984.

Good point.  What about the church protocol?  Has it changed since then as well?  I don't know.  Even though I find his choice not to do anything with the information disturbing (my bias), I suppose it is understandable.  

[Just_A_Guy]

Just now, LiterateParakeet said:

Good point.  What about the church protocol?  Has it changed since then as well?  I don't know.  Even though I find his choice not to do anything with the information disturbing (my bias), I suppose it is understandable.  

There’s another distinction to be drawn here:  mandatory reporter requirements apply in cases of *child* abuse.  They don’t usually apply to allegations of the rape of an adult.  

Indeed, many adult rape victims specifically forbid their confidants from taking the information to law enforcement; and I’m not aware of any law forcing such individuals to betray the trust placed in them.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Good point.  What about the church protocol?  Has it changed since then as well?  I don't know.  Even though I find his choice not to do anything with the information disturbing (my bias), I suppose it is understandable.  

It absolutely has... you have seen the letter they just put out right?

The simple fact is.. Bishop's use their own discretion (And spiritual promptings) (that is the protocol) unless the Church through its handbooks and training explicitly state a course of action.  Which in cases like this they are doing more and more explicitly then they have in the past

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

19 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There’s another distinction to be drawn here:  mandatory reporter requirements apply in cases of *child* abuse.  They don’t usually apply to allegations of the rape of an adult.  

Indeed, many adult rape victims specifically forbid their confidants from taking the information to law enforcement; and I’m not aware of any law forcing such individuals to betray the trust placed in them.

Oh yeah, good point.  I work with teens so the mandatory reporting is drilled into us.  I agree that adults are a different situation.  Honestly, if I were raped as an adult, I likely would not report it to the police, because I don't think it would help.  And I would forbid anyone I told to tell also.  

15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

It absolutely has... you have seen the letter they just put out right?

The simple fact is.. Bishop's use their own discretion (And spiritual promptings) (that is the protocol) unless the Church through its handbooks and training explicitly state a course of action.  Which in cases like this they are doing more and more explicitly then they have in the past

The letter this week?  Yes, I love it.  It really comforts my heart to know the Brethren are very serious about this issue.    But what I was wondering about was if it had changed between when this event occurred and say one month ago.  

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

The letter this week?  Yes, I love it.  It really comforts my heart to know the Brethren are very serious about this issue.    But what I was wondering about was if it had changed between when this event occurred and say one month ago.  

When it comes to potential crimes against youth, and against abuse the church's stance and instructions are leaving less and less "discretionary" room for Bishops.  It very much has changed

When it comes to other crimes that do not fall under those two classifications there is still "discretionary" options.  So in the case of an adult claiming rape.  Its not the Bishop place to report that (nor is there a legal requirement to)... it is the accusers.  Church discipline is still "discretionary" and usually follows legal action. (Because church action generally requires a confession or very clear proof [like a conviction])

[Vort]

50 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There’s another distinction to be drawn here:  mandatory reporter requirements apply in cases of *child* abuse.  They don’t usually apply to allegations of the rape of an adult.  

This is an excellent (and obvious) point. I wonder that I didn't immediately see it. [cue MG making an age-related joke]