Pope Benedict has announced he will resign effective the 28th of this month. The last time a pope resigned was in 1415. link Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, I'll say it. I'm highly doubtful that he's actually retiring due to age concerns. I expect that someone has some pretty good dirt on him and is forcing him out.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
What makes you say that?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Inquiring minds wish to know!
(Sorry about double posting, I don't like using JB's account for general banter.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A combination of the extremity of a papal resignation, the scandals of the last half century in the church, and the fact that he's always had some troubling pieces of personal history.
It's not a ridiculous conclusion to come to.
On the other hand, many have noted his rapidly deteriorating health in recent years.
Honestly it wouldn't surprise me either way.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I suspect the same as mrSquicky. I recall some accusations in the past that he was involved in sexual abuse coverups and figured that some more evidence or a greater role in that was discovered.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Because Pope's don't retire. Especially not based on age. The Pope isn't sick and while he has been in decline, he really doesn't look that frail (although this may be misleading). He has, however, been very close to (and most likely involved in) some pretty bad stuff.
Also, this announcement has come as a shock to the Vatican itself. This isn't something that they have planned for or even seem to have known about.
If I had to guess, I'd say someone most likely has evidence that he was directly involved in covering up the sexual abuse that happened while he was Archbishop of Munich. We already know that they have lied about his role in at least one case. Here's an article describing them finding out about the lie.
--- edit: Also, there is his general attitude. Recall that this is the person who authored the policy of threatening to excommunicate priests who reported sexual abuse to the legal authorities.
[ February 11, 2013, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that given what's happened in terms of scandals and coverups, and how deep Ratzinger was (is) in them, it wouldn't be unreasonable to wonder if they were a serious consideration in *anything* he did.
But a twice-in-a-millenia papal retirement? Yeah, wondering about scandal is far from unreasonbly suspicious or cynical. Frankly, though it is the opinion of an outsider, given how foully the Catholic Church has handled sexual abuse and coverups, I'm disappointed he won't be in office if/when another scandal with his name on it breaks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Don't worry. I think the next entity likely to judge him will have phenomenally more power to enact a lasting punishment for whatever crimes he's committed.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'd think a scandal is unlikely. As Squicky pointed out there's already plenty of bad press about him, including some specifically to do with the sex-abuse issues. And for it to be a scandal, it would have to be a scenario in which he'd find out about it before it was reported, and he thinks resigning before it breaks would in some way help. Which sounds like a pretty specific scenario to me. I find it more likely that he's trying to address the fact that, unlike the majority of the time the Catholic Church has been around, people are more likely to lose their mental and physical capacities but still live for years. i.e. We're at a period where a Pope not dying (and thus remaining Pope) but being incapable of fulfilling his duties is incredibly likely.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It could be anything from actual health issues,* to scandal, to wanting to insure the that his successor would be a conservative pope who is younger and will be around for a while. This seems likely as the Vatican seems to be looking at non-European candidates but I honestly don't have enough information to know.
* It seems that he had some opinions on why a Pope would resign for health issues when he was a scholar.
[ February 11, 2013, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm with Hobbes. I suspect it's something like Alzheimers, where he knows he might live for a long time but be cognitively unable to function as pope.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I'm with Hobbes. I suspect it's something like Alzheimers, where he knows he might live for a long time but be cognitively unable to function as pope.
That would be my guess as well.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Just how cognizant was John Paul II those last few years? What exactly does a pope really have to do that requires a strong mental capacity, y'know besides ignoring violent immorality.
ETA And talking to god, because only the pope who is chosen by god can talk to god.
[ February 11, 2013, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
First to retire in something like 600 years. I am sure it is totally for health reasons because I'm a totally gullible person.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I'm with Hobbes. I suspect it's something like Alzheimers, where he knows he might live for a long time but be cognitively unable to function as pope.
That would be my guess as well.
The Vatican has said that he doesn't have a specific illness, though.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
I'm a pretty gullible person. Hope he feels better!
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Who knew the pope had so much in common with young Hollywood starlets? Maybe he can be pope again after he goes to a rehab clinic that specializes in "exhaustion."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Does the upper leadership of the Catholic Church have a reputation for retiring or otherwise sidelining themselves when ability or behavior demonstrates them unfit for their position?
Are there recurring leaks and scandals that point to Ratzinger to have been more involved than he has claimed in misdeeds involving sex abuse?
Given the answers to both of these questions, it's tough for me to understand why people would default to the explanation in which the leadership is prudent and truthful.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The best part about this is that benedict has spent quite a while trying to move the vatican significantly more conservative, and if he gets his wish and a really conservative pope gets elected, the institution will continue its expedient decline as a moral authority.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The best part about this is that benedict has spent quite a while trying to move the vatican significantly more conservative, and if he gets his wish and a really conservative pope gets elected, the institution will continue its expedient decline as a moral authority.
This is my concern.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
... The catholic church had moral authority once? Tell me more history grandpa!
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
He finally realized that Vader was serious about throwing him down the exhaust shaft, and decided to quietly step aside.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Eligo Samp Rimary!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok grandchildren gather around. well once upon a time there was this really old worm-eaten institution which was still inexplicably powerful and they wore a lot of really silly looking clothes because they were downright fossilized in tradition. They claimed to be the ultimate moral authority on earth while simultaneously engaging in the concerted and intentional concealment of the endemic rapes of children within their organization by persons of high moral authority, and no i am not making that up. There was this one dude who was pretty high up in the wearing of silly hats hierarchy and he made a career out of attempting to conceal the most vile of abuses against children and he threatened people who would ever tell police who was raping children and said it could only be dealt with internally. Then they would deal with it internally by silencing the victims, telling the rapist that they were a very bad person, then sending them off to where they could rape more children. He did such a good job out of the career of shielding and enabling child rapists that eventually they rewarded him with the largest silliest hat of all. However he did not do a good job of actually concealing these crimes from the public (even though they really concertedly tried), and the results of all the extra rapes of children that were enabled by these people resulted in a scandal pouring out about the rape and torture of children. By this time the institution was so sclerotic that it was notorious mostly for issuing stunningly outdated and hopeless pronouncements against birth control, using condoms to prevent people in developing nations from dying of horrible diseases, accepting gays as part of society, or letting women be equals. In most of the modern parts of the world people were already pretty used to ignoring what the people in hats said, even if they said they were faithful adherents of the people in the hats. Like in the country where I lived, it was like one in twenty people who were faithful to the funny hat church who paid any attention to how they were absolutely strictly forbidden from using birth control, and stuff. Anyway the scandals got so widespread and really gnarly that entire countries, once firmly aligned with the funny hats as the ultimate moral authority on earth, started turning against them in complete castigation because it turns out that the places where they were allowed to act with the most impunity were where the most endemic abuses, sexual or otherwise, happened, usually to children. I mean, Ireland, man, let's talk about Ireland. No, let's not. Let's talk about chief silly hat, formerly chief i'll-kick-you-out-if-you-dare-tell-the-cops-anything, one day in the middle of the whole damn thing falling down and really being generally seen as a terrible person by most people, and who bore a comically expedient resemblance to the evil emperor in star wars, decided he was going to be the first person in 600 years to give up chief silly hat position by stepping down rather than just holding the position for life even well after one is too old and senile to stand, like the last chief silly hat before him. Most people were like "oh HEALTH reasons, sure, I totally believe you, pause, not" and it was about then I realized that the fossil silly hat church and its finger wagging at birth control and crap, while entertaining, was entering a terminal phase of unrecoverable decline, and that someday I would have all you grandchildren assembled before me, rambling on about how yes seriously this totally was a thing, yes, the world was quite a different place. And while we all certainly have our own fair share of problems, like the neurax plague and the robot overlords, I don't think I miss the international social prominence of the silly hat church.
Their cathedrals were really pretty, though.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: First to retire in something like 600 years. I am sure it is totally for health reasons because I'm a totally gullible person.
He was on record as a cardinal as questioning the tradition of popes staying in office when they can no longer fill the functions of the office. And he had asked for retirement more than once before becoming pope. He clearly stated, once he became pope, that he intended to step down if he was cognitively unable to function as pope.
Besides which, if there is a new or intensified scandal, in what way is his resignation going to protect either himself or the church?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: ... The catholic church had moral authority once? Tell me more history grandpa!
Certainly parts of it did at different times and in different ways. The Vatican and the bishops are not the Church.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Besides which, if there is a new or intensified scandal, in what way is his resignation going to protect either himself or the church?
While either would be a very grim stain on the Church's reputation in the area of coverups or sexual abuse scandals (or both), wouldn't it be worse if the current Pope were implicated instead of a retired Pope?
I don't think anyone is claiming that if there is bad news brewing that motivated this retirement that such an action would sideline much less negate any bad news-rather that it would be triage of a sort.
I'm still not sure why the Catholic Church or Ratzinger has any credibility in this area anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: First to retire in something like 600 years. I am sure it is totally for health reasons because I'm a totally gullible person.
He was on record as a cardinal as questioning the tradition of popes staying in office when they can no longer fill the functions of the office. And he had asked for retirement more than once before becoming pope. He clearly stated, once he became pope, that he intended to step down if he was cognitively unable to function as pope.
Besides which, if there is a new or intensified scandal, in what way is his resignation going to protect either himself or the church?
him actually resigning for health reasons is certainly plausible, it's just not something we can take him at his word on anymore. He could also be resigning because the issue of the church being led at a time of scandal and crisis for many many more years yet by a person who chiefly made his career within the church by covering up child abuse and enabling pedophile rapists to abuse more children is perhaps a bit much and it's becoming really obvious that it's going to really come out at a Confirmed level over time, and the church is better served by moving on to a new pope.
Preferably a new pope as conservative as Benedict desires to move the church in the direction of, which will only enhance the effects of catholicism's noted social decline.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
People always say that Benedict was really conservative, but this was an extremely radical move on his part. Not only that, but he really wasn't that much more conservative than many other popes. He just followed established doctrine.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
This surprised me. I thought the office was meant to be clutched in one's shriveled, reptilian claws until the bitter end.
It does seems sensible, though, to resign if you don't feel up to doing the job.
I don't really believe anything will stall the church's loss of centralized power. I kind of think the days of wielding religious power politically are numbered. (Possibly quite a large number, but still.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That is what his predecessor thought, to the point that when he began dying in earnest there was a deathwatch before it was done. I suppose Ratzinger can be applauded for that, at least-getting one's affairs in order is pretty important if one is in charge of over a billion souls.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
So who else is waiting eagerly by their phones?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
It is believed that John Paul II also thought about abdication, although it's not supposed to be called abdication, for some reason. I think it should, since it the only absolute monarchy in Europe, one of few around the globe.
I think it's a lot of reasons combined. He is not the politician that JPII was. He is a good grandpa, sickly, unable to handle the crumbling Church. The next pope, most probably Italian again and conservative, won't be able to deal with the problems, either.
It'd be cool to have a more liberal pope. Pope has indefinite power of changing everything in the Catholic Church doctrines, a bold, young pope could manage a lot, I think, like Wojtyła did.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Did the Catholic Church and the Pope once have legitimate moral authority? Yes. His name was Pope John Paul I. But that is just me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not just you. I am rather fond of Pope John XXIII as well.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Assuming, you know, he's actually stepping down for the reasons he says, it's okay with me. I'm picturing my grandmother, who gradually rid herself of her social obligations well before her complete decline into being a shut-in. Which, oddly, she seems to enjoy now that the dementia is going strong. She can't remember anything long enough to be bothered by it, so she's just really cheerful all the time, despite suffering from depression at many points in her life. It's probably a certain personality type that says, "I'm old. I don't WANT to go anywhere any more. Screw it." Other people work until the day they literally die. I think has the right to do that, but just as much he has the right not to. As long as it's his decision.
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: He finally realized that Vader was serious about throwing him down the exhaust shaft, and decided to quietly step aside.
thought this reference would be earlier
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote: The Italian media is reporting that Pope Benedict XVI resigned after receiving the results of an internal investigation, delivered in a 300-page, two-volume dossier, that laid bare a sordid tale of blackmail, corruption and gay sex at the Vatican.
The respected Italian newspaper La Repubblica reported Friday that the report stamped "Pontifical Secret," contained "an exact map of the mischief and the bad fish" inside the Holy See. ... A similar story was carried by Panorama, a conservative weekly. ... The three-man panel, according to La Repubblica, discovered an underground gay network whose members organized sexual meetings in several locations, including a villa outside Rome, a sauna in Rome's Cuarto Miligo distirct and even in a beauty salon inside the Vatican.
The gatherings, in turn, left them open to blackmail from people outside the Vatican, the report said, according to the newspaper.
The Vatican, that's who!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It's hardly a laughing matter. Frankly it makes me ill.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I'm at work so I can't read the article yet, but I'm curious as to why you're having that reaction.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: First to retire in something like 600 years. I am sure it is totally for health reasons because I'm a totally gullible person.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I mean we are literally talking about an organization that was so exasperated with how often they had to go in with fixers to make payoffs and keep issues quiet and silence the victims that at one point they figured they needed to buy a whole island off the coast of Grenada to house all of their recidivist pedophile offenders. Seriously, the vatican has told so many monstrous lies that they've lost even basic credibility, but, to their credit, they managed to successfully cover up the abuses for decades.
and let's still not talk about those poor irish.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Mel Gibson's dad was really right!!!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's hardly a laughing matter. Frankly it makes me ill.
I'm actually pretty curious about this reaction. What does it make you feel this way?
I don't even see this as surprising. Of course there is a high level gay sex network at the Vatican. I'm sure there has been one for as long as there has been a Vatican.
From my perspective, this is so very far from the really bad stuff that they do. Heck, it's not even as bad as some of the other sex stuff that is almost definitely going on among the Curia.
---
Edit: While the Vatican has some pretty unique factors that make this sort of thing more prevalent, I think it's naive to think that there isn't a high level gay sex ring among say Mormon leaders too (especially the ones who are really vocally anti-gay). Of course there is.
[ February 23, 2013, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
At least it sounds like it involves consenting adults this time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
maybe that's what made it such a scandal for them
ohhhh, anti-Church humor, i'm so original
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Let's see, a city founded by, governed, and inhabited by men who willingly renounce heterosexual relations to all live together and wear robes.
Well, put this in the shocker column...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Eh, it's pretty straightforward. Human beings generally (almost always) want at least the possibility of having sex soon. That need can reliably be rated as 'powerful'. So if you stick a bunch of human beings together, one of the things you can count on is that they'll want to have sex.
With high ranking clergy (of any stripe), it would then seem that there are competing factors. On the one hand, preselecting for those who have sworn themselves to celibacy is one thing to put against the need to have sex. Reverence for a deity too can be a very powerful force. Perhaps, probably?, even enough for most of them. But then for the rest there's a good dose of entitlement and power that will so often lend itself to 'we get to do what we want'.
Even before we get to the part where simply no one should be surprised at serious hypocrisy on sexual matters with this particular institution, this story isn't surprising. I don't know the reputation of these Italian papers, or if these stories should be credited as credible, but if they are...I wouldn't be surprised.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As for BlackBlade's reaction, well if it weren't him saying it I might read it as 'eww, gays!' but that's not him so I suspect it has something to do with disgust for such degrees of dishonesty and hypocrisy, along with the betrayal that-not the homosexuality-poses to Catholics.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Edit: While the Vatican has some pretty unique factors that make this sort of thing more prevalent, I think it's naive to think that there isn't a high level gay sex ring among say Mormon leaders too (especially the ones who are really vocally anti-gay). Of course there is.
Not a Mormon leader, but *another* high-ranking Catholic, this time the leader of the church in the UK who is as MrSquicky indicated "really vocally anti-gay," just got thrown into the fray. While the article in The Guradian doesn't full-on "out" Cardinal O'Brien, it may as well have.
quote:Three priests and a former priest in Scotland have reported the most senior Catholic clergyman in Britain, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, to the Vatican over allegations of inappropriate behaviour stretching back 30 years.
The four, from the diocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh, have complained to nuncio Antonio Mennini, the Vatican's ambassador to Britain, and demanded O'Brien's immediate resignation. A spokesman for the cardinal said that the claims were contested.
O'Brien, who is due to retire next month, has been an outspoken opponent of gay rights, condemning homosexuality as immoral, opposing gay adoption, and most recently arguing that same-sex marriages would be "harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of those involved". Last year he was named "bigot of the year" by the gay rights charity Stonewall.
One of the complainants, it is understood, alleges that the cardinal developed an inappropriate relationship with him, resulting in a need for long-term psychological counselling.
....
It is understood that the first allegation against the cardinal dates back to 1980. The complainant, who is now married, was then a 20-year-old seminarian at St Andrew's College, Drygrange, where O'Brien was his "spiritual director". The Observer understands that the statement claims O'Brien made an inappropriate approach after night prayers.
....
"Priest C" was a young priest the cardinal was counselling over personal problems. Priest C's statement claims that O'Brien used night prayers as an excuse for inappropriate contact.
The cardinal maintained contact with Priest C over a period of time, and the statement to the nuncio's office alleges that he engineered at least one other intimate situation. O'Brien is, says Priest C, very charismatic, and being sought out by the superior who was supposed to be guiding him was both troubling and flattering.
....
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MrSquicky:
quote:I'm actually pretty curious about this reaction. What does it make you feel this way?
Because as a Christian, and since I served as a missionary for two years where I was not permitted to express any sort of sexuality including flirting or even think about having a girlfriend, I can relate to the effort to devote yourself entirely to the ministry, and the difficulties attendant to a complete vow of celibacy.
Seeing people fall so hard from that consecration is extremely sad to me. The only people I generally see laugh at that sort of discomfiture are people who have never held a long term serious commitment in their entire life.
quote:While the Vatican has some pretty unique factors that make this sort of thing more prevalent, I think it's naive to think that there isn't a high level gay sex ring among say Mormon leaders too (especially the ones who are really vocally anti-gay). Of course there is.
Call me naive then, I don't believe it's likely at all. For one thing the leaders are not especially vocal in their opposition of homosexuality. Like, I can't think of a sermon in the last 10 years that was dedicated solely to the topic. There isn't some auxiliary or official department designed to stop homosexuality. They simply believe it's what the God via the scriptures wants them to do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Seeing people fall so hard from that consecration is extremely sad to me. The only people I generally see laugh at that sort of discomfiture are people who have never held a long term serious commitment in their entire life.
I do agree there is probably a good bit of unworthy enjoyment in the downfall of others here, for much of the criticism. What's more, there was a time I think I would've shared your reaction or at least a portion of it. But for myself, I find it's hard not to feel some satisfaction at this sort of scandal, separate as it is from the more common sort of Catholic priest sex scandal and child victimization.
For me, it's not because I feel the clergy is rife with either homosexuals or pedophiles. For me the grim satisfaction stems from the true bankruptcy the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has earned for itself on the issue of proper...management? Guidance?...of human sexuality.
Had it not worked so hard and so long at serving the prestige of the priesthood over the welfare of sexually abused children, I would be less satisfied with scandals that reduce, well, the prestige of the priesthood. So for me there is satisfaction in harm done to an institution I frankly loathe (meaning the leadership particularly)-it's just that I think it's earned.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Call me naive then, I don't believe it's likely at all. For one thing the leaders are not especially vocal in their opposition of homosexuality. Like, I can't think of a sermon in the last 10 years that was dedicated solely to the topic. There isn't some auxiliary or official department designed to stop homosexuality. They simply believe it's what the God via the scriptures wants them to do.
You are naive.
And talk about moving the goalposts: "dedicated solely to the topic," is not what we are talking about. The proprietor of this very board lends his public image to an organization that seeks to limit the rights of homosexuals, and even encourages the retention of laws that make homosexual acts illegal even though he acknowledges their lack of justice- an unforgivably ethically bankrupt position.
And I'm sorry Blackblade, but you make out the Mormon church to be just haplessly sitting in Utah, letting anyone who cares to ask, know that they are against homosexual rights. Mormons and the church collectively have spent billions of dollars fighting homosexual rights in politics, and in court. You can frame that as "simply believe," whatever you want, but there is nothing simple about the Mormon position. It is deeply tied into politics, money, and business, as is every major position of any church of this size.
[ February 25, 2013, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
o'brien resigns
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro:
quote:And talk about moving the goalposts: "dedicated solely to the topic," is not what we are talking about. The proprietor of this very board lends his public image to an organization that seeks to limit the rights of homosexuals, and even encourages the retention of laws that make homosexual acts illegal even though he acknowledges their lack of justice- an unforgivably ethically bankrupt position.
Ummm, moving the goal posts is when I say something needs to be established/disproved, and when it's done I change the conditions by which either of those things is accomplished. I might not have kicked the ball between Mr. Squicky's goalposts, but that's another issue.
As for what organization Mr. Card belongs to, that speaks nothing to the official position of the church. Yes the church has spent money and encouraged its membership to support Proposition 8 and other marriage amendments, but we are talking about vocal opposition. We don't have apostles going on radio shows to sound off on their opposition, or on television. Almost all of the directives against homosexuality have come via brief announcement letters to the congregation that the church is supporting a marriage amendment to the constitution because it protects the traditional family, and that members should take steps to support the traditional family, but that they have to make this decision for themselves.
I'm not making the Mormon church to be anything. It makes itself, and I observe it. I'm not arguing that there are elements including probably most of the leadership that are vehemently against same-sex marriage. But we said "vocally". They are not very vocal by any reasonable standard. Active? Sure. Vocal? No.
Tied to politics, money, and business is misleading. I seriously doubt their original position on this issue had anything to do with any of those three issues. I think politics may be influential in how that position changes, but ultimately I think the church is fighting a fight that should be making them feel good because they are standing up for their beliefs, but they aren't getting the feelings of satisfaction they would if they were right. Many in the church are dissenting, but are doing so for good reasons, not for evil ones. So the leadership is pushed into self-evaluation again.
The church's business interests I don't think are being influenced almost at all by the same-sex marriage issue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
When an organization is active in something, them being "vocal" about it is a good thing. It's fairly better than being covertly active in it, like with front groups, etc.
Either way, the official church position is still very anti-gay.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not making the Mormon church to be anything. It makes itself, and I observe it. I'm not arguing that there are elements including probably most of the leadership that are vehemently against same-sex marriage. But we said "vocally". They are not very vocal by any reasonable standard. Active? Sure. Vocal? No.
Hmm. Perhaps coming at it a different way, and also a serious question: are there controversial political topics such as SSM that the Mormon Church *is* 'vocal' on? That is to say I agree that the church isn't going full court press on this matter, utilizing all of its media and influence, but the serious question is: are there any political issues on which they do? I really don't know, and although I expect the answer is 'no', I need to ask someone in a position to know.
I suspect the answer is no-that the church takes no 'vocal' stance on any controversial political issues at all. Or at least, not on the national stage. I read things elsewhere about its political power-brokering in Utah that frankly make me think this national policy of discretion is more a clever political move (since the church would face many challenges if it attempted to take a strong controversial political stand on the national stage, where it's a tiny minority, and would risk much) rather than an earnest desire to keep out of politics.
I think maybe that same suspicion is what motivates folks such as Orincoron and Samprimary to view crediting the church's refusal to be 'vocal' with a grain of salt. That they aren't vocal about *anything* on the national stage, as a question of efficiency and not policy. But that's part of why I asked the question-I don't know if they actually do refuse to be vocal on any controversy, or if they actually are much less restrained in places where they have much higher membership.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think they are as vocal as they think prudent. As Rakeesh says, it's carefully calculated for maximum effect, not restrained to avoid impropriety. A simple statement at sacrament meeting, encouraging the membership of the church to advocate for a political position, is substantially more influential than an ad campaign or press conference so getting too focused on the definition of the word "vocal" is sort of missing the point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I really don't know, although as I said that's what I suspect is closer to the truth than a general committment to political discretion. That's why I was curious about political advocacy and involvement in stages where their presence is more powerful.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think it's naive to think that there isn't a high level gay sex ring among say Mormon leaders too (especially the ones who are really vocally anti-gay). Of course there is.
This is not actually likely, from my perspective. I think it's obvious that some of the high ranking LDS leaders have been secretly gay, simply as a matter of statistical likelihood. And of course people who are secretly gay sometimes have secret gay sex. But a "ring...among leaders" doesn't make much sense; there'd be too much risk inherent in making overtures.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think you are all missing the forest for the trees in BBs comment. It's undeniable that the LDS church had a significant impact on proposition 8 and the church leaders have been vocal opponents of gay marriage. That's not the point.
The point is that opposing gay marriage (and homosexuality in general) is a really minuscule fraction of what the church does. The idea that the LDS church central leadership has some sort of obsession with persecuting gays, is an idea that's only believable if you are nearly completely ignorant about the church and what it does. It may be the overwhelming majority of what you see the church doing, but it is an nearly insignificant fraction of what the church does.
99.999% (at least) of the church's efforts are a) not political and b) have nothing to do with homosexuality. The caricature you have of LDS church leaders as a bunch of rabid homophobes who are very likely involved in lacivious homosexual acts is only remotely believable if you have no familiarity with the governance of the LDS church or the scope of its teachings, programs, and activities.
MrSquicky's accusations (along with Sam and Orin's defense of those accusation) say an awful lot more about your own vile bigotry than anything else.
Consider these facts. The LDS church has been ex-communicating homosexuals for decades. There are a very large number ex-LDS gays (including both those who left voluntarily and those who've been thrown out) who are extremely outspoken critics of the LDS church leaders. In that environment, how long do you think the church could keep a gay sex ring involving the highest leaders of the church secret?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: MrSquicky's accusations (along with Sam and Orin's defense of those accusation) say an awful lot more about your own vile bigotry than anything else.
I don't know if I'd characterize it as vile bigotry. They all seem to be discussing in fairly good tones so far. Rakeesh is even asking for someone who has better knowledge of how the church operates before deciding his opinion.
Of course you just raised the stakes by throwing those two words out there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Opposing homosexuality is a tiny part of what the Catholic Church does, too. But it seems to be a huge focus of what the Vatican and the bishops think about these days. So no surprise, here. We are broken when it comes to sexuality. There are folks working to make us better, but centuries of being messed up doesn't get cured in a generation or two.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:MrSquicky's accusations (along with Sam and Orin's defense of those accusation) say an awful lot more about your own vile bigotry than anything else.
If what I have discussed or elaborated upon is something you take as "vile bigotry" then you should know that you are inspiring, furthering, and validating how a significantly oppressed group or its allies should not cater to or even be remotely impressed with the perspective of a more empowered group crying 'bigotry' in response to being challenged on the anti-gay views of a religious organization.
quote:In that environment, how long do you think the church could keep a gay sex ring involving the highest leaders of the church secret?
Decades, based off of what we know can be done even in virulently anti-homosexual institutions. This completely aside from the probability of a sex ring in the "highest leaders" of the church as opposed to other levels.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
As for the churches influence in Utah politics. Well it's kind of hard to disentangle. I don't follow things extremely closely but it seems to me that the church rarely makes any official statement about local politics. The last official political statement I can remember is when the church said that we need to address immigration with love and concern for families.
On the other hand, there is a whole lot of banner waving and overt implication from local politicians that their position is the "righteous and proper church position."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Rabbit,
Since you've approached this in an...assertive way, I'm happy to discuss it in that fashion with you as well.
quote:The point is that opposing gay marriage (and homosexuality in general) is a really minuscule fraction of what the church does. The idea that the LDS church central leadership has some sort of obsession with persecuting gays, is an idea that's only believable if you are nearly completely ignorant about the church and what it does. It may be the overwhelming majority of what you see the church doing, but it is an nearly insignificant fraction of what the church does.
On the national stage, it doesn't seem to me to be at all an insignificant fraction of what the church does. When it comes to influencing and supporting state-wide legislation, it doesn't seem miniscule at all. But suppose for the sake of argument that it was (and I should note that neither you nor I nor anyone else has actually substantiated either argument). In that event, how many good works buy off wicked works, exactly? How many charitable contributions does the church need to make before we have to look the other way on their work to keep homosexuals as far from fully-fledged citizens as can be managed?
quote:99.999% (at least) of the church's efforts are a) not political and b) have nothing to do with homosexuality. The caricature you have of LDS church leaders as a bunch of rabid homophobes who are very likely involved in lacivious homosexual acts is only remotely believable if you have no familiarity with the governance of the LDS church or the scope of its teachings, programs, and activities.
I realize this is hyperbole, but please Rabbit, at least attempt to be serious. Less than .0001% of the church's efforts in the world involve either homosexuality or politics? Furthermore, this caricature you're asserting exists in your own mind. No one has said what you're imputing to them. You can scale it back about half a dozen steps.
quote:Consider these facts. The LDS church has been ex-communicating homosexuals for decades. There are a very large number ex-LDS gays (including both those who left voluntarily and those who've been thrown out) who are extremely outspoken critics of the LDS church leaders. In that environment, how long do you think the church could keep a gay sex ring involving the highest leaders of the church secret?
Yes, 'voluntarily'. Anyway, it's interesting that you would put forward these facts when earlier you were speaking so dismissively about the church's efforts with respect to homosexuality. Anyway, in that environment neither of us actually know how long such a thing could be kept secret, on the basis of those paltry parameters. That said, though, people have begun to be seriously wary of Catholic priest child sex abuses for almost a generation now if not more, and still various abuses and criminal acts are kept secret successfully for quite some time-often until someone from the outside sinks hooks in `em and drags `em out to light.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:On the other hand, there is a whole lot of banner waving and overt implication from local politicians that their position is the "righteous and proper church position."
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. To my mind, a sign of an institution that was actually, seriously committed to political discretion and neutrality would be that when a politician made such a statement, another statement was issued by the church explaining in plain terms that Politician Doe ought not try and wrap himself in the church's flag.
A sign of an institution that is only halfheartedly committed to political discretion and neutrality is when it is clear to everyone what precise words need to be said in which precise order to claim the prestige and authority of the church.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:On the national stage, it doesn't seem to me to be at all an insignificant fraction of what the church does. When it comes to influencing and supporting state-wide legislation, it doesn't seem miniscule at all. But suppose for the sake of argument that it was (and I should note that neither you nor I nor anyone else has actually substantiated either argument). In that event, how many good works buy off wicked works, exactly? How many charitable contributions does the church need to make before we have to look the other way on their work to keep homosexuals as far from fully-fledged citizens as can be managed?
You missed the point entirely. The question at hand was whether the church leaders opposition to gay marriage was reason to believe they were not only gay homophobes but nearly certainly involved in a gay sex ring.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think they are as vocal as they think prudent. As Rakeesh says, it's carefully calculated for maximum effect, not restrained to avoid impropriety. A simple statement at sacrament meeting, encouraging the membership of the church to advocate for a political position, is substantially more influential than an ad campaign or press conference so getting too focused on the definition of the word "vocal" is sort of missing the point.
The typical stereotype is that the people who are loudest and find the most occasion to speak out against homosexually often turn out to be gay themselves. Because they are dealing with the issue of self-loathing, they have secret gay sex, and then over-compensate the attendant guilt by loudly railing against homosexuality. I am arguing that church leaders do not fit that profile. I have said why they do not, it's incumbent on opponents to state why they do.
As for how vocal the church leadership is on political issues, well, you'd have to look at which group of leaders we are talking about. Brigham Young was the spiritual *and* political leader of Utah for a long time. He built temples, and he sent people to establish colonies, he had a hand in passing laws, he was the closest thing this nation has had to a prophet/king probably ever. When Utah was up for statehood, the leadership specifically directed congregations to vote 50% Republican and 50% Democrat so that Utah could overcome (ironically) accusations of church influence in politics, and be granted statehood. When prohibition was being passed, the church leadership was very vocal in supporting it, and directing the membership of the church to vote for it. When its repeal was up, the prophet (I believe it was Heber J Grant) tearfully implored Utah not to cast the deciding vote that would kill it. He wasn't adhered to.
As for today's leaders. There's quite a bit of scholarship on how political they are. In Utah politics they have surprisingly expressed opinions for passage of non-discrimination against homosexuals in Salt Lake City housing (also the current state wide proposal), they have supported liberal immigration reform. I say surprising, in that they (commentators/members) were not expecting the church to be as active as it is. Church leaders have explicitly stated that there is no impropriety in the church being involved in civil affairs, so they have certainly laid the groundwork for potential active participation.
Then of course there was proposition 8, and some of the other marriage proposals other states have considered where the church invested in lobbying for their passage. All of these things are recent developments so in the last 10-15 years or so.
So today, I'd say they are "somewhat active, but that could change very quickly". If the church leadership all felt strongly about universal opposition to same-sex marriage, the avenues to express that are in place and have not all been used. It's much more likely the church leadership is divided on the question, are unsure about exactly where the church will be on the matter, and probably considering it on a routine basis as the church is divided on the issue, and a major rift on such a major issue is antithetical to what the scriptures says should be the case.
I think a good analog to how the church sorts these issues out is "evolution". As far back as the church goes there were opponents and proponents of it both in the apostles and first presidency. They had to work out church-wide policy for whether evolution should be taught, taught against, or ignored. The church position frequently changed based on who was prophet, and based on the actions of leaders on both sides of the issue. Today the church accepts evolution, but you don't hear anybody accusing it of doing so because of money, politics, etc. For some reason that charge is reserved for blacks and gays.
[ February 25, 2013, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
What would be considered high ranking LDS leader? I'm having a hard time believing the certainty of a gay sex ring among the 12 Apostles. The 70's seems unlikely too, but it wouldn't really surprise me to see a couple of cases where someone was discovered, but not enough to be a whole ring organised within the quorums.
Getting down to the Stake President and Bishop level wouldn't surprise me much but I don't consider them "High Ranking" really.
Then when you get into the ward level. Well anything can happen.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: What would be considered high ranking LDS leader? I'm having a hard time believing the certainty of a gay sex ring among the 12 Apostles. The 70's seems unlikely too, but it wouldn't really surprise me to see a couple of cases where someone was discovered, but not enough to be a whole ring organised within the quorums.
Getting down to the Stake President and Bishop level wouldn't surprise me much but I don't consider them "High Ranking" really.
Then when you get into the ward level. Well anything can happen.
There have absolutely been stake presidents and bishops who have been outed, ex-communicated, or voluntarily left because they were gay/participating in gay sex.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think you are all missing the forest for the trees in BBs comment. It's undeniable that the LDS church had a significant impact on proposition 8 and the church leaders have been vocal opponents of gay marriage. That's not the point.
The point is that opposing gay marriage (and homosexuality in general) is a really minuscule fraction of what the church does. The idea that the LDS church central leadership has some sort of obsession with persecuting gays, is an idea that's only believable if you are nearly completely ignorant about the church and what it does. It may be the overwhelming majority of what you see the church doing, but it is an nearly insignificant fraction of what the church does.
99.999% (at least) of the church's efforts are a) not political and b) have nothing to do with homosexuality. The caricature you have of LDS church leaders as a bunch of rabid homophobes who are very likely involved in lacivious homosexual acts is only remotely believable if you have no familiarity with the governance of the LDS church or the scope of its teachings, programs, and activities.
Really? You think .001% of the church's efforts are focused on anti-gay legislation? Napkin math along would suggest that this means the $20 Million spent *directly* by LDS leadership on prop 8 alone represents only .001% of the church's $2 Trillion fortune. Assuming they never said or did or spent a single penny on anything else anti-gay. An imperfect metric, to be sure, but you don't spend $20 million on something you don't care about, at least a little.
So we've learned that the church is the richest private organization on Earth, and that despite hitching its wagon to various political organizations that fight against homosexual rights, it doesn't care about homosexual rights. For some reason.
I don't believe that the LDS leadership is obsessed with homosexuality, actually. But this kind of minimization troubles me, because it simply does not represent the truth. They do care- and they do spend money on it. A rather large amount of money.
quote: Consider these facts. The LDS church has been ex-communicating homosexuals for decades. There are a very large number ex-LDS gays (including both those who left voluntarily and those who've been thrown out) who are extremely outspoken critics of the LDS church leaders. In that environment, how long do you think the church could keep a gay sex ring involving the highest leaders of the church secret?
LDS has a horrible, vitriolic relationship with its gay members. Therefore if the church were anti-gay but secretly covering up all sorts of weird crap, we would know about it from these people who are criticizing the church, who would be talking about it. Therefore the church is not secretly covering these things up. The very non-caring-about-gay-people church. QED.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not making the Mormon church to be anything. It makes itself, and I observe it. I'm not arguing that there are elements including probably most of the leadership that are vehemently against same-sex marriage. But we said "vocally". They are not very vocal by any reasonable standard. Active? Sure. Vocal? No.
I am trying to imagine a semantic universe in which the distinction between a religious institution being politically active against homosexual rights (as demonstrated by publicly known and documented political action and financial support for political organizations) and being "vocal," is a difference that is significant in any way other than how it makes you feel to hear it.
The church gives a lot of money to fight against homosexual rights. Known fact. Speech is more than marketing: it is more than what you say or how you brand yourself. Speech is also encompassed by what you do. In this case: *fighting against equal rights*. Did you see those adds they broadcast in California that agitated against teachers "teaching" homosexuality in schools (a lie constructed to frighten religious people into voting for prop 8). Because LDS payed for those- it was one of a consortium of contributors. And that financial connection was one that was out in the open. Many are not.
I can pay a group of people lots of money to say things. I can't then expect to be seen as "not caring," what those people are saying. The fact that LDS didn't brand those commercials (nor did anyone else who contributed), but chose to hide behind a front organization is a sign that they were aware of the political feedback they were going to generate by participating. That's why you can look at "DefendMarriage.com," and find no evidence of a link to the church, nor any of the contributors.
If that kind of back dealing doesn't bother you, then I do wonder. I don't want to be part of an organization that does that kind of thing. Why would you want to contribute to an organization that isn't willing to own its own opinions publicly- that wants the splash but not the splash-back? Does it reek of honesty to you?
So whether you want to call that being vocal or not, we both know what it is. Your quibbles about whether it defines the church for you are meaningless to me. The church does this- and it does it with money it gets from you. Your speech, and that of all Mormons who tithe knowing what the church does with the money.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Napkin math along would suggest that this means the $20 Million spent *directly* by LDS leadership on prop 8 alone represents only .001% of the church's $2 Trillion fortune.
A little fact check here. The church didn't spend $20 million, nor did the leadership. Individual members spent that much out of pocket. The church spent approx. $190,000 in in kind donations.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: We aren't arguing the same thing at all. It was originally asserted that the Mormon leadership (especially the loud ones) probably/definitely have a secret gay sex ring. I am only disagreeing that such a ring exists, and that the psychology of their leaders lends itself to the profile of a self-loathing gay man who nonetheless speaks out loudly against homosexuality.
That's all. Really, that's everything.
Now, if you can find some other organization where the leaders operated in similar fashion and turns out there was a gay sex ring, or that several prominent leaders were closeted homosexuals, then you win this point!
I don't have to establish my credentials as a dissenter on proposition 8. And no, the money I give to the LDS church is not going towards oppressing gay rights. Tithed funds are *not* used for these sorts of things. They have a specific limited use application, and an auditing department ensures these rules are kept. If you can find evidence that the auditing department is not doing it's job, is lying, or that the church is misleading its auditors, I would immediately stop paying my tithing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I realize this is hyperbole, but please Rabbit, at least attempt to be serious. Less than .0001% of the church's efforts in the world involve either homosexuality or politics?
You have one too many zeros after that decimal point. If you are going to criticize me for exaggerating, don't exaggerate what I said. Of course I have no idea what the actual percent might be or how one would even define what that means. It's very small, certainly much less than one percent. I'm sure that's hard to believe for someone whose only real point of contact with the church is on this issue. Do you understand sampling bias?
quote:Furthermore, this caricature you're asserting exists in your own mind. No one has said what you're imputing to them. You can scale it back about half a dozen steps.
Mr Squick said,
quote:I think it's naive to think that there isn't a high level gay sex ring among say Mormon leaders too (especially the ones who are really vocally anti-gay). Of course there is.
How does that differ from the caricature I claimed he was making? Those words must mean something different to you than they do me. In my language "vocally anti-gay leaders involved in high level sex ring" means exactly the same thing as "rabid homophobes involved in lacivious homosexual acts", its just a tad more polite.
From stillbn,
quote:I don't know if I'd characterize it as vile bigotry. They all seem to be discussing in fairly good tones so far.
If MrSquicky's accusation is based on anything more than 1) the stereotype that vocally anti-gay people are closeted homosexuals and 2) the stereotype that religious leaders are massive hypocrits, he certainly didn't present it. Making that kind of accusation based solely on stereotypes is the definition of vile bigotry.
Put the shoe on the other foot. What if he'd said "It's naive to think a gay scout master wouldn't molest the boy scouts. Of course he would" The only difference I see is that one set of stereotypes is politically correct and the other is not.
If you or I or anyone else in this forum had jumped in to defend someone who'd made such a claim about a gay scoutmaster, Sam, Orin, and Rakeesh wouldn't have hesitated a second to call it bigotry. Neither would I.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Opposing homosexuality is a tiny part of what the Catholic Church does, too. But it seems to be a huge focus of what the Vatican and the bishops think about these days.
I think this bears repeating.
Does the LDS church really differ markedly from the Catholic church in terms of its proportions of whatever percent of time is spent on political or anti-gay activities? I think that's probably a better question that quibbling over 0.01% or 20 million or whatever.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Opposing homosexuality is a tiny part of what the Catholic Church does, too. But it seems to be a huge focus of what the Vatican and the bishops think about these days.
I think this bears repeating.
Does the LDS church really differ markedly from the Catholic church in terms of its proportions of whatever percent of time is spent on political or anti-gay activities? I think that's probably a better question that quibbling over 0.01% or 20 million or whatever.
Or rather, it seems to be a huge part of what the news reports about the Vatican.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Napkin math along would suggest that this means the $20 Million spent *directly* by LDS leadership on prop 8 alone represents only .001% of the church's $2 Trillion fortune.
A little fact check here. The church didn't spend $20 million, nor did the leadership. Individual members spent that much out of pocket. The church spent approx. $190,000 in in kind donations.
Do you have a source for that? My research (cursory I admit) said $20 million.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't have to establish my credentials as a dissenter on proposition 8. And no, the money I give to the LDS church is not going towards oppressing gay rights. Tithed funds are *not* used for these sorts of things.
I'm not at all sanguine that you know that for sure.
quote: Tithed funds are *not* used for these sorts of things. They have a specific limited use application, and an auditing department ensures these rules are kept. If you can find evidence that the auditing department is not doing it's job, is lying, or that the church is misleading its auditors, I would immediately stop paying my tithing.
As far as I know, the LDS church's books are closed to the public. That is reason enough for me to doubt their word on how any of that money is spent. That they have an auditing department means little, if those auditors are internal church employees.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There is certainly no evidence for a gay sex ring among general church leadership.
Speculation about such a thing isn't very useful.
There is no need to speculate about how much the Church directly contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign. These things are a matter of public record.
You may need to scroll down a bit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:As far as I know, the LDS church's books are closed to the public. That is reason enough for me to doubt their word on how any of that money is spent. That they have an auditing department means little, if those auditors are internal church employees.
That's fine *you* feel that way. I do not, and God has given me no indication that is the case. Nor, have my own forays into how the church spends its money lead me to believe you are right.
If there was misappropriation of funds, it's only a matter of time before a person who worked as an auditor leaves the church/goes public. Further, the church doesn't need to use tithed funds for its political expenditures. As others pointed out, it's own expenditures on Prop 8 were not very high (relatively speaking), and it certainly has more than enough assets to shoulder those costs without involving tithing. Not to mention using tithed funds for political expenses is an extremely risky move for no gain, as they would be explicitly sinning were they to do that, even for good political causes.
They simply don't need to use the money I send in my tithing envelope to do anything but build churches, help the poor, etc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Opposing homosexuality is a tiny part of what the Catholic Church does, too. But it seems to be a huge focus of what the Vatican and the bishops think about these days.
I think this bears repeating.
Does the LDS church really differ markedly from the Catholic church in terms of its proportions of whatever percent of time is spent on political or anti-gay activities? I think that's probably a better question that quibbling over 0.01% or 20 million or whatever.
Or rather, it seems to be a huge part of what the news reports about the Vatican.
Not really. I wouldn't blame media bias on this as Catholic new agencies are reporting the same.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Opposing homosexuality is a tiny part of what the Catholic Church does, too. But it seems to be a huge focus of what the Vatican and the bishops think about these days.
I think this bears repeating.
Does the LDS church really differ markedly from the Catholic church in terms of its proportions of whatever percent of time is spent on political or anti-gay activities? I think that's probably a better question that quibbling over 0.01% or 20 million or whatever.
Or rather, it seems to be a huge part of what the news reports about the Vatican.
Not really. I wouldn't blame media bias on this as Catholic new agencies are reporting the same.
Not really referring to media bias here, just that the bulk of things that any organisation does never gets reported because it's not news and boring. But I'll take your word for it. You're the authority on the Catholic church here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that you are correct about less controversial things getting less attention but I am not sure that this applies here when it comes to the Vatican. For example, the good works that the nuns have been doing was largely unreported until the Vatican made it news by insisting that the nuns shift their focus to more controversial issues like contraception and same-sex marriage.
ETA: There must be other Catholics here.
[ February 26, 2013, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Opposing homosexuality is a tiny part of what the Catholic Church does, too. But it seems to be a huge focus of what the Vatican and the bishops think about these days.
I think this bears repeating.
Does the LDS church really differ markedly from the Catholic church in terms of its proportions of whatever percent of time is spent on political or anti-gay activities? I think that's probably a better question that quibbling over 0.01% or 20 million or whatever.
The Catholic church and the LDS do in fact differ quite markedly in their political activities as well as their positions on the appropriate roll of church's in politics. I could go into detail on the multitude of the ways in which they differ but that really isn't the relevant question.
The relevant question is whether the LDS church and the Catholic church differ in ways which would make a high level sex scandal significantly less likely in the LDS church than it is in the Catholic church. The answer to that questions is an unarguable yes regardless of whether there is any difference between the two church's political and anti-SSM activities.
The Catholic church has a professional clergy, all of whom are required to take a life long vow of celibacy. The LDS church has a lay clergy that are required to be married to serve in pastoral positions.
Catholic Priests rarely serve in the communities in which they grew up. They are transferred from parish to parish. They are promoted and demoted as rewards and punishments for their performance.
In contrast, LDS leaders serve as volunteers within the community in which they live and work. Bishops and stake presidents serve only for a few years and then return to be regular members of the congregation. The very few who are asked to serve full time as General Church Authorities typically do so only after many years of pursuing a secular career while serving in lay positions within their local church community.
There are also enormous differences in the way the two church's choose to discipline both their clergy and their general membership.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that you are correct about less controversial things getting less attention but I am not sure that this applies here when it comes to the Vatican. For example, the good works that the nuns have been doing was largely unreported until the Vatican made it news by insisting that the nuns shift their focus to more controversial issues like contraception and same-sex marriage.
ETA: There must be other Catholics here.
There are, in fact, other Catholics here, though I rarely post anymore. I can't check in often enough to keep up with the fast paces of some conversations.
That said, I agree with what Kat has said so far. And I thank her for pointing out all the unnoticed work that nuns have done for serving both the Church and the world.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I love the fact that some people believe that the most important theological and moral position that a religious institution can have is on homosexuality. That a negative stance against same-sex marriage - for the most part the Catholic Church is not trying to demonize or convert homosexuals into heterosexuals - completely eradicates extremely humane positions on a living wage, health care for all, that all people are worthy of God's love (equality), and the list goes on.
Another misconception that people have due to the Catholic Church having a "supreme pontiff" is that the Catholic Church is extremely centralized and run from the top down; this is such an incorrect characterization and shows the lack of understanding many have for the Catholic Church. There are so many subgroups,religious orders, and just dioceses out there that the Church ends up actually being fairly decentralized. The Catholic Church is also so massive in terms of both opinion and membership that is practically impossible to make massive changes in the Church - think of something along the lines of priesthood for women - that although the Pope has the legal power to make massive changes he really doesn't have a political leg to stand on to make large changes without creating a schism within the church. Even something like Vatican II created a lot of angry Catholics out there and caused members to leave the church.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: I love the fact that some people believe that the most important theological and moral position that a religious institution can have is on homosexuality.
People who have seen real and measurable harm coming to a vulnerable minority from positions of discrimination and judgment — and remember, here, that words and deeds are quite different things — from people and institutions can decide that it is entirely fair to declare that an organization like the catholic church deserves judgment on the subject of X and completely dismiss advocates of the church saying it's unfair to judge them on X when — my gosh! — look at how kind they are in Y and Z! Look at all they do for A, B, and C!
In this case, the church can be really really great in a lot of areas, but it is still not great and even very bad in very important areas. X is X, whatever we're talking about for X; a church supporter isn't going to get very far with me if I'm talking about gay marriage or the magdalene laundries and they say "but you know we have such a kind position on living wages!"
quote:- that although the Pope has the legal power to make massive changes he really doesn't have a political leg to stand on to make large changes without creating a schism within the church.
That's still centralized power? Just with added elements of ungovernability. Duly .. uh, amusing to note with an organization that claims the kind of holy, supreme moral authority as the vatican.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Like I'm going to state right here that this whole "it's only point zero zero zero zero tiny small fraction!" stuff is a great way to try to downplay whether or not an organization's position and acts related to a certain thing are socially important and of activist concern.
Like, let's say that the mormon church had expended exactly the same zero zero zero zero one percent total effort towards, say, reinstating the illegality of miscegenation, or something else which is now considered as morally bogus and indefensible as gay marriage is going to be considered, in a very relatively short amount of time. And this causes a huge uproar among colored communities and people concerned with racial discrimination. And let's say they have definitely been politically active on the issue of ending legal miscegenation, had front groups, levied money directly or indirectly to flex political power ... Is anyone's excuse for this going to be "stop giving us so much crap about this, it's only 0.01% of what we expend our energy on!"
noooooooooooooooooooooooooope
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I'm not trying to say that, and certainly wasn't attempting to insinuate as much in my post. What i was attempting to state is that you shouldn't judge the Catholic Church "Bad" for one incorrect view, or at least incorrect view in the eyes of some. The analogize, I wouldn't hate, or even find a person bad, for holding a political or theological view contrary to mine. I could very well find the position wrong, but still find them to be a generally good human being. I think the same evaluation should be given to the Church. Especially when an organization like the Catholic Church literally has "official" views on everything.
There are also lots of things the Pope literally cannot do. There are actually real checks and balances on papal authority, but I realize that most people have ZERO knowledge about the Catholic Church beyond the fact that it has a pope and a lot of priests touched kids.
There is also a big difference between random attacks on an institution as a whole and calling for the institution to reform. I also don't think holding a position against same-sex marriage is the equivalent of holding a position against homosexuals having a bevy of human rights. I have yet to read an edict of the church or declaration from the Church that says that homosexuals cannot go to heaven, receive the grace of God, etc. Now, they are saying that they don't condone the behavior and that they find it sinful, which honestly is probably not what a homosexual Catholic wants to hear. But then there is, to be honest, so much of modern life is that is equally or more sinful to homosexual behavior that the Church spends a GREAT deal more time dealing with. However, I find it scandalous and sinful that the Catholic Church has spent any money against same-sex ballot measures and the like.
We also all have a kind of ethnocentric view when it comes to the Catholic Church and forget just how vast the Catholic Church is in terms of membership and geographic reach. I would argue the only equivalent institution might be the UN, but even then I would say that in a lot of ways the Church is larger and more complex.
But I'm rambling here. Also, Ratzinger has gotten a lot of bad press that really should be leveled against John Paul. Look at when all the sex abuse and scandal was happening. What Ratzinger is really guilty of is trying to do damage control on what was going down when JP was pope. Admittedly, that damage control was immoral and wrong. The Church should have just come out and apologized openly and cleaned house.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Black Fox,
quote:I love the fact that some people believe that the most important theological and moral position that a religious institution can have is on homosexuality. That a negative stance against same-sex marriage - for the most part the Catholic Church is not trying to demonize or convert homosexuals into heterosexuals - completely eradicates extremely humane positions on a living wage, health care for all, that all people are worthy of God's love (equality), and the list goes on.
Speaking for myself, I don't think nor have I said that the church's position on homosexuality is the most important factor to consider. That would be silly. Speaking for others, I don't think anyone else has, either. However, the discussion did come around to questions of homosexuality thanks to Italian newspapers, and given that just because we're now talking about the church's stance on the matter doesn't necessarily mean anyone thinks it's the primary matter.
Now, that said...I'm not particularly impressed by all of the various good works the church does-not as an institution. The individual people themselves who do so have my respect and gratitude, but the institution itself claims to be the representative of a loving God here on Earth, doing His work, etc. It claims that it takes its marching orders, so to speak, from Him.
Well if that's the case, then all of those good works are what they're supposed to be doing, and for pity's sake if they ought as you suggest get credit for the good works as an instutition then they'll damned well get the blame as an instutition for the bad works. They don't get to laugh it off by pointing to how much charity they do.
quote:I'm not trying to say that, and certainly wasn't attempting to insinuate as much in my post. What i was attempting to state is that you shouldn't judge the Catholic Church "Bad" for one incorrect view, or at least incorrect view in the eyes of some. The analogize, I wouldn't hate, or even find a person bad, for holding a political or theological view contrary to mine. I could very well find the position wrong, but still find them to be a generally good human being. I think the same evaluation should be given to the Church. Especially when an organization like the Catholic Church literally has "official" views on everything.
Again speaking for myself, I'm not necessarily judging the whole institution as 'bad' for one incorrect view-although if I were to do so, their handling of child sexual abuse by priests would rate much higher than their official stance on homosexuality. But to my mind, if they're going to claim divine mandate and inspiration, that necessarily makes the grading that much stricter. If they want to claim to be on God's team, let them-but let them do so in all particulars.
quote:But I'm rambling here. Also, Ratzinger has gotten a lot of bad press that really should be leveled against John Paul. Look at when all the sex abuse and scandal was happening. What Ratzinger is really guilty of is trying to do damage control on what was going down when JP was pope. Admittedly, that damage control was immoral and wrong. The Church should have just come out and apologized openly and cleaned house.
Oh, I very much agree. John Paul doesn't rate very highly with me at all, given who he supposedly was and what went on under his leadership-however vaporous and tenuous it might actually be in reality.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Like I'm going to state right here that this whole "it's only point zero zero zero zero tiny small fraction!" stuff is a great way to try to downplay whether or not an organization's position and acts related to a certain thing are socially important and of activist concern.
Bravo Sam, You really eviscerated that strawman. Now maybe you can focus on the arguments someone here actually made.
While I'm sure that there are people you use the 'it's only a tiny fraction' argument to downplay social importance of the LDS church's opposition to prop 8 -- that was very clearly not why I brought up the issue.
My point was that anti-SSM activism by LDS church leaders is not a legitimate reason to suspect that the highest church leaders are involved in a gay sex ring. If you disagree, please explain why you think the evidence for a gay sex ring among LDS general authorities is so compelling?
I'm not gonna holding my breath for that because you and I both know the evidence isn't there. Plus, you are clearly having way too much fun beating up the strawman you've built.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hi, I'm Sam. I am saying that arguing fractions is a great way to try to downplay whether or not an organization's position and acts related to a certain thing are socially important and of activist concern. This is because you used a completely invented fraction about the church's energy and resources (which I don't believe, by the way) as part of your point about the gay sex ring and as a result the issue of quibbling over little tiny percentage points becomes an issue that can be addressed in and of itself. If you read my post again, it is not saying you took the position that the fraction makes the church's anti-homosexuality okay. I don't even know if you're okay with the church saying that homosexual sex is a sin and gays should not be allowed to marry each other, are you?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
There is one big difference between the LDS church and the Catholic church that seems to be left out of this discussion. Ok, there are many big differences, but one I'd like to bring up.
Vatican City is composed of a bunch of unmarried men who have made a divine promise to abstain from all sexual congress. Woman walking through those halls is a rarity, and a woman in private meeting with one of those men is a peculiar thing, while two or more men gathering together, sharing rooms, etc is quite common.
Salt Lake City, and the LDS church headquartered there, is full of married men who have made a divine promise to procreate with there wives as often as is safely possible. They not only have an outlet for their sexuality. They have a mandate to use that outlet. Man and wife sharing rooms and in private discussions are common. Two men sharing a room, a Elder and a novice for example, rings warning bells and is investigated.
Its much easier for a "Gay Sex Ring" to exist and flourish in Vatican City than in the upper levels of the LDS and Salt Lake City.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Two men sharing a room, a Elder and a novice for example, rings warning bells and is investigated.
This is not true.
Edit: on second glance, I'm not sure I know what you meant. Two men share a bedroom all the time. They are mission companions and it's the rule. One adult and one adolescent are alone in a room all the time, with the bonus of a giant power and age imbalance. It's called an interview with the bishop and it doesn't raise any warning bells. It's even expected that the bishop will discuss sexual matters with the adolescent, alone.
[ February 27, 2013, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
scifibum: In the instance of the two elders sharing a room, they are explicitly prohibited from sharing a bed for any reason. I'm reasonably certain there have been gay companions who flounced that rule, but it's still a far cry from a sex ring. Missionaries aren't in the field long enough to establish such a ring I should think.
As for the bishop thing, you don't have situations where a bishop interviews the same young man multiple times in a short period of time. Again, this isn't to say sexual abuse has never occurred, again, I'm reasonably certain it has. But you could never have a bishop abuse a group of young men for years undetected as others mentioned, they are released after a few short years, and you wouldn't have a situation where a bishop is alone with a boy or girl multiple times in a short span of time.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Black blade, I think you are overly naive. But I have known a lot of Mormons who have been pretty badly treated by bishops and counselors. Heck, I know a pedophile who just got set apart as second counselor last Sunday.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm afraid I have to agree with scholarette. If the gradual increase of knowledge about child abuse teaches us anything, it's that the reason for rules such as 'never alone with a child' for priests, teachers, so on and so forth, is that 'never' is too long a word. That in fact we have an interest, speaking generally of human beings, in avoiding the sort of 'never' talk that feels right when discussing such a terrible crime. Fully aware of the contradiction, I say that we should never say never.
As for official records of church finances, well, it's not for me to tell you what you should believe about the integrity of those managing Mormon accounts, BlackBlade. In fact I don't try to, not knowing enough one way or another to have an opinion. Except this-my instinct tells me that for any institution whose records and activities aren't open to the public, to rely on their integrity and on eventual whistleblowers is not uncommonly an unwise policy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Black blade, I think you are overly naive. But I have known a lot of Mormons who have been pretty badly treated by bishops and counselors. Heck, I know a pedophile who just got set apart as second counselor last Sunday.
Could you explain how I am being naive? I conceded that both things can happen. I only argued against it being likely to have an institutionalized sex ring amongst missionaries, or a prolonged instance of child abuse from a bishop towards the same person.
I know a pedophile scout master who abused a boy for so long, when the boy grew into a consenting adult, he was convinced that he actually was in love with his abuser, and left his family to be with him. Both were members of the church.
Nurseries in the church all have windows (often one way where you can see from the outside in, but not inside out). There are always at least two nursery leaders in the class. When a child needs to be removed a second responsible adult is always summoned before two adults take the child to their parents or to the bathroom.
When I was a missionary and my companion held closed door interviews, I always sat right outside the door. We were not permitted to sit and teach a discussion with a single person of the opposite sex, regardless of how trustworthy or pure their motives were.
--------
Rakeesh: I completely agree, and I have been long contemplating why the church does not disclose its finances. It doesn't sit exactly right with me, but I am trying to not let my bias about the propensity for secrecy to turn into corruption lead me to immediately conclude the church is corrupt because it is secret about it's finances.
Maybe I just don't want to believe it, but the leaders do not use the funds for their own unrighteous purposes, as evident by the fact none of them are especially wealthy. For some reason the richest Mormons are never general authorities. They are not sending the money abroad to tax havens, or funding satellite groups with evil agendas. From what I can tell, the money stays in the church, goes towards good investments (good as in good for people and the community). So, so far, I am at least suffering the anonymity.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Do I need to point out that the church releasing its financial information to the public serves no purpose except to expose the church to pointless and unnecessary scrutiny at the hands of armchair politicians? Releasing it to just the membership will inevitably lead to an unapproved public release of that information. I suspect that your desire to look into the church's financial records is entirely about legitimizing your own hatred.
quote: Heck, I know a pedophile who just got set apart as second counselor last Sunday.
A convicted pedophile? That seems unlikely. If so, tell the local church leaders about it. The church doesn't have a system of background checks in place for choosing leaders (though it might be a good idea for the church to develop one).
If he's not a convicted pedophile, do you have personal knowledge of this individual actively abusing children? I haven't been here in a while, so I can't remember if you are a member of the church. But there's this part of sacrament meeting where members are asked if they approve of an appointment like that. If a member has knowledge of some misdeed that should be addressed, it's not unacceptable for people to raise their hand when they say "Are there any opposed to this appointment?". Even one person raising their hand at that point calls for a private discussion with leadership regarding the reasons for opposing. If you're a member and knew something about this but didn't oppose...why didn't you? If you aren't a member or are inactive, please...Call the bishop and bring up your issues.
Regarding mistreatment of people by bishops. This is why we have a somewhat hierarchical leadership system. If a bishop is mistreating people, they have every opportunity to speak with a Stake President. If they have issues with a Stake President, they can talk to an Area Authority. And so on, all the way up to the first presidency. If there is abuse in the church that continues unopposed, it is most often due to people *not pointing it out*.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The nursery with windows and all the rules on nursery are actually fairly new, like last decade and based on timing, that safety push came from my parent's ward after their nursery teacher was arrested for molesting several nursery students in their ward.
I don't think there is an organized sex circle, but I think there are many things setup that allow abuse easier than should be. Also, bishops having 5 years of access is for an abused child a very long time. I also know of bishops and stake presidents who have chosen to cover things up, which again for a child who finally trusted an adult with abuse to have that abuse covered up and allowed to continue is devestating. But, I guess people like to confide in me because I have heard a lot of stories and the setup of the bishops and interviews has been abused often.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Do I need to point out that the church releasing its financial information to the public serves no purpose except to expose the church to pointless and unnecessary scrutiny at the hands of armchair politicians? Releasing it to just the membership will inevitably lead to an unapproved public release of that information. I suspect that your desire to look into the church's financial records is entirely about legitimizing your own hatred.
Oh for pity's sake, hatred? Can you discuss this like a calm, rational human being or not? I'm happy to attempt it myself, but not if you're going to fly so far off the handle as that-which also, though I doubt you intend it, illustrates some of the points people are making.
Now, then. First of all, it's interesting that you clearly think publicizing church finances would only lead to widespread public mockery. Isn't that somewhat at odds with the claims I'm hearing here, which I suspect you would agree with, that this spending is strictly aboveboard and for good causes? Second, let me understand this: because it *might* lead to public loss of some prestige, the church should keep records of how it spends the money of its members a secret from those members. The important thing in the reasoning you're putting forward is that the critical thing is to save the church's reputation.
Well, that sort of thinking bears a very marked resemblence to another topic of discussion in this thread, which has been one of my points. But in any event, you're supposed to be God's church. Why does God's church recoil so fiercely from even the possibility of the scorn of unbelievers?
quote:Regarding mistreatment of people by bishops. This is why we have a somewhat hierarchical leadership system. If a bishop is mistreating people, they have every opportunity to speak with a Stake President. If they have issues with a Stake President, they can talk to an Area Authority. And so on, all the way up to the first presidency. If there is abuse in the church that continues unopposed, it is most often due to people *not pointing it out*.
Oh, yes, this too is generally the way of institutions run by humans. When there are transgressions, the fault generally lies with victims not being noisy enough about it. It's the fault of these victims, not of the institution. Because again-prestige must be preserved.
-------
BB,
quote:Rakeesh: I completely agree, and I have been long contemplating why the church does not disclose its finances. It doesn't sit exactly right with me, but I am trying to not let my bias about the propensity for secrecy to turn into corruption lead me to immediately conclude the church is corrupt because it is secret about it's finances.
This would seem less to me a 'bias' than a very sensibly prudent precaution. Not even the prophet of your church is said to be speaking and acting always with the righteousness of God, with that degree of virtue-and the concern isn't only malicious greed, there's also a question of competency. For the sake of argument let's say there were good, sound reasons to be sure the money wasn't being used for bad purposes-does that necessarily mean it's being well spent?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: Define well-spent? I went to church in one of the last remaining colonial style mansions left in Hong Kong. The church purchased it many years ago. The church wanted to renovate it so that parking wasn't such a nightmare, but the Hong Kong press was furious with the church for wanting to alter a piece of Hong Kong's history. The uproar caught the church off guard so it hastily made a deal with the HK government that it would sell the mansion in exchange for a building elsewhere in downtown. The value of the mansion vastly outpaced the building the church got in exchange, and the new building doesn't have any parking lot to speak of. So members have to train/bus in, or else use a pay lot nearby.
The church lost hundreds of thousands if not over a million dollars in the bad deal.
BYU is in part subsidized by the church, which keeps tuition costs down. Just about any student can tell you that it has extremely old facilities in alot of places, it's research is behind in multiple fields. It's missing many academic programs. Just about the only well-funded thing I can think of is the football team. And yet, BYU hemorrhages money. It's been such a costly lesson, the church probably will never construct a new university elsewhere ever.
The Mormon church built a very expensive temple in Kirtland, Ohio, in their poverty. They were chased off their land, and had to abandon the temple. So, they built another one in Nauvoo, Illinois. They were chased out again, and an arsonist burned the temple to the ground. Who is to measure how well that money was spent? Ask a Mormon at the time and many if not most would say it was money very well spent. Ask a secularist and it's a freaking waste. Worse than a Ferrari.
I guess I'm trying to say, I'm comfortable with the fact that the church leaders will mismanage the money they are given. They are learning too. Jesus himself said make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, or in other words, learn to be good at managing your money. This requires mistakes to be made. I'm also happy to leave that responsibility in the hands of those whose calling it is to manage church funds.
I don't want prolonged mismanagement to continue because of secrecy, but there are definite downsides to church finances being endlessly scrutinized.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Oh, yes, this too is generally the way of institutions run by humans. When there are transgressions, the fault generally lies with victims not being noisy enough about it. It's the fault of these victims, not of the institution. Because again-prestige must be preserved.
You insufferably arrogant ass. Did I say it was the fault of the people who were abused? NO! You have this HORRENDOUS habit of sticking words in my mouth and I will not stand for it. I am referring specifically to people who stand on the sidelines, knowing when people are being abused and then do *nothing* to stop it. Absolutely nothing. Not even raising their hands in a church meeting when asked if they know that something is going on. If you want to accuse me of blaming victims for not coming forward about their own abuse, please, point to where I said that.
And you have no business whatsoever knowing anything about where the church spends its money. None at all. That's why the church doesn't release that information, because it *doesn't have to*. Show me an organization that releases its books in such detail that would allow the average person to determine if *every cent in the tithing fund is spent only for certain things*. Particularly when you're dealing with *billions* of dollars. And by unnecessary scrutiny, I mean things like, "The church spent xxx dollars building a parking lot in Downtown LA! That money could have been spent doing xxx!!!" You realize how much of that kind of crap the church *already* puts up with?
[ February 28, 2013, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boris,
The name calling was whistled. Just being public about it.
Now, then.
quote:If there is abuse in the church that continues unopposed, it is most often due to people *not pointing it out*.
Perhaps you didn't mean these words the way you typed them out and posted them. Nevertheless, you said them and I didn't put words in your mouth. You attributed ongoing 'unopposed' abuse when it happens to victims remaining silent. You said that. If having it said back to you elicits such outrage, well, might be a good sign to reconsider your opinion.
quote:And you have no business whatsoever knowing anything about where the church spends its money. None at all. That's why the church doesn't release that information, because it *doesn't have to*. Show me an organization that releases its books in such detail that would allow the average person to determine if *every cent in the tithing fund is spent only for certain things*. Particularly when you're dealing with *billions* of dollars. And by unnecessary scrutiny, I mean things like, "The church spent xxx dollars building a parking lot in Downtown LA! That money could have been spent doing xxx!!!" You realize how much of that kind of crap the church *already* puts up with?
Well if you will whine about my putting words in your mouth, here's quite a few claims I didn't make. I quoted you saying what I said, so I'll ask you to do the same. First of all I didn't say the church owed anything to *me*. In fact I focused more on questions of why it keeps these things hidden from its members. Second, my point wasn't that the church has some huge moral obligation to open its books to the public but to ask why you were so afraid of publicity. Third, if you're going go compare your church to other organizations...well, that don't wash. Not many organizations claim to be founded by Gos and to communicate His teachings to not just its members but the world. So yeah, I'll rate shadiness on the part of a trading house as a bit less troubling than in God's supposed institution on Earth.
You all are making some mighty big claims for yourselves. That's fine, incidentally. I don't buy into them, but thankfully I've a choice in the matter. But if you're going to make those claims for yourself, then damnit be prepared to face a sharper more skeptical eye. Only natural.
Oh, and if we're going to talk about not standing for things-I won't have it said that I hate your church without giving you the lie for doing so. I pointed out that the claim was nonsense, and you rolled right over it as though it hadn't been said. Looking squint-eyed at an organization which keeps its finances secret from its own members isn't the same as hatred, not by a long shot. You know this to be true for two reasons: one, I've plainly said as much and two, I'm having a perfectly civil conversation with BlackBlade, a man who has the guts to hear a critical word without getting angry, on this very topic. If he can do it, you can do it.
If you're going to leave that accusation out there, though, I hope you soon arrive again at another tantrum and proclamation that you're done with this place.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Now that I've calmed down a bit...I want to point something out to you, Rakeesh. My post was an admonition for someone to speak up with knowledge about what she knows of possible abuse to the leadership of the church. My comment that you outline above, you took completely out of context. In context, it's very plain that I mean people with knowledge of abuse who aren't victims doing nothing about it. Not the victims themselves. You made a *very* unfair misrepresentation of what I said, without me asking for your input. I was not speaking to you, and you decided to, again, make a snarky, arrogant snipe at me. I'm sorry I got pissed, but you do that in almost every controversy laden thread I post in and I'm getting really tired of it.
Furthermore. My other point was that the church has no need to outline every expense it makes to the membership of the church or the public. Demanding it do so is an unnecessary burden on the leadership that would require a level of expense to distribute that would most definitely be better spent helping people.
Also, the church views public declaration of good deeds to be a prideful act that destroys the purpose of doing good deeds. For the church to publish the money it spends on humanitarian aid, public welfare, and other initiatives would be viewed by cynical people as an attempt to garner good press, and "Crying your good deeds from the roof tops" is one of the things the church implores people to avoid. There are a multitude of reasons why the church wouldn't want to publish its finances even to the members. Not the least of which includes the fact that those finances contain records of charitable donations. Both who gives and how much. That type of information *should* be kept private. For you to automatically assume that there is some cloak and dagger hidden evil secret reason behind it is incredibly cynical and extremely insulting to members of the church. Do you realize that? Do you realize that by being so publicly cynical as to claim that because we believe that the church holds the truth of God that it should be completely transparent about how it spends its money would be insulting to someone who believes in the teachings of the church? You are basically saying "It can't be true because they don't tell everyone how they spend the money they get." Can you not see how that is probably one of the most logically *weak* arguments you could make against the church?
And I used the wrong word in saying "Hatred"...I meant prejudice. I used hatred because my vocabulary broke. Basically, I was saying that people in the public who want to view the finances of the church want to because they feel that it would reveal some deep dark evil that the church is doing so they can justify their prejudice against the church. Realistically, it's probably more like Romney's tax returns. A whole lot of "well that was boring".
[ February 28, 2013, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: There are a multitude of reasons why the church wouldn't want to publish its finances even to the members. Not the least of which includes the fact that those finances contain records of charitable donations. Both who gives and how much. That type of information *should* be kept private. For you to automatically assume that there is some cloak and dagger hidden evil secret reason behind it is incredibly cynical and extremely insulting to members of the church. Do you realize that?
Wow. It's insulting to be reasonably suspicious of a multi-billion dollar operation that claims to act under the aegis of a supernatural being, which doesn't make its financial dealings public, even to the members whom it asks to tithe a large percentage of their personal incomes. And to cast suspicion upon that (as you so hyperbolically put it "automatically assume," even though no such assumptions were in fact proffered, only suspicions), is INSULTING.
Really, *you* ought to feel insulted that you belong to an organization that has become filthy, filthy rich on your back, and the backs of millions of other people, and that they keep those finances secret, even from you, and actually have the gall to claim that it is for your good, and that to do so is "righteous," or "proper." You've been sold a bill of goods you wouldn't buy from any government, or from any business you invested in. But your church can do it. Imagine how that looks to a person who has not even a glimmer of hope that your church is actually serving anything but itself, and pointless, magical superstition.
In fact: imagine we had an "athiest church," that functioned in *exactly* the same way as the Mormon church functions in terms of finances. Would you consider it an insult to question that arrangement with suspicion? Because let me tell you, I would be VERY suspicious of such an organization- as an Atheist, and as a rational human being.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Right...Because the LDS church doesn't operate one of the most successful privately owned welfare systems in the world (That is, contrary to popular belief, accessible be anyone who wants the assistance. Not just members). It doesn't provide 10s of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid every year. It doesn't have a fund devoted specifically to paying for college tuition for individuals in third world countries. It doesn't operate 3 high quality universities that charge a tenth of what comparable universities charge for tuition (and that's the rate for people who aren't members). It doesn't provide a relatively stable social environment for people from all walks of life. It doesn't provide safe, stable locations for people in poverty stricken regions to meet, socialize, and discuss topics of spiritual significance with one another. The church hasn't organized millions of volunteer man hours dedicated to disaster relief. It hasn't expended millions of dollars in helping rebuild communities devastated by natural disasters.
Oh wait. The church actually *does* do all that. While asking only 10% of my income from me. Show me a government that can do as much as the church does with its "Bill of goods" that I've been sold for what it costs me and I'd be happy to move there and change my citizenship ASAP.
What, do you think that the leadership of the church are driving around in ferraris and crap like that while laughing all the way to the bank with all that money they've bilked out of their loyal followers? The current president of the church was a bank executive before he became a church leader. He currently lives in an expensive (due to location) but relatively small condo across the road from temple square that was purchased by the church to house the church president. He spends most of his time flying around the world, visiting third world countries and giving speeches *for free*. I would like for you to point out one thing that would suggest that any of the leaders of the church are living a life of opulence and luxury on the backs of the church membership. Sorry. Your representation of the church's finances is both misguided and bereft of actual facts, Orincoro. You choose to believe that the church is wasting my money, with no evidence to support that belief, because you *want* the church to be this evil thing you think it is. I'm sorry. It isn't.
quote: imagine we had an "athiest church," that functioned in *exactly* the same way as the Mormon church functions in terms of finances.
Ever bought a book by Richard Dawkins?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
When we were in need recently, members of the Church accessed Church programs and gave us two weeks of food for free.
While we were gone, they cleaned our home. They took turns watching our youngest who isn't in school yet. They took turns giving rides to our other four children to the various events and practices they had scheduled.
They visited us and comforted us when we allowed them to. They offered to pay the bills, and didn't ask for anything in return.
This is the church built upon my back, as Orincoro would say.
I am happy to pay tithing and to give generously to such an organization.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Right...Because the LDS church doesn't operate one of the most successful privately owned welfare systems in the world (That is, contrary to popular belief, accessible be anyone who wants the assistance. Not just members). It doesn't provide 10s of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid every year. It doesn't have a fund devoted specifically to paying for college tuition for individuals in third world countries. It doesn't operate 3 high quality universities that charge a tenth of what comparable universities charge for tuition (and that's the rate for people who aren't members). It doesn't provide a relatively stable social environment for people from all walks of life. It doesn't provide safe, stable locations for people in poverty stricken regions to meet, socialize, and discuss topics of spiritual significance with one another. The church hasn't organized millions of volunteer man hours dedicated to disaster relief. It hasn't expended millions of dollars in helping rebuild communities devastated by natural disasters.
With alacrity I declare that it indeed does all of those things.
So does the US Government. And its books are open. The Mormon books are closed, and that I find suspicious. And for that I think you are foolish to contribute.
quote: What, do you think that the leadership of the church are driving around in ferraris and crap like that while laughing all the way to the bank with all that money they've bilked out of their loyal followers?
I have no way of knowing how much of the church's spending ends up in the pockets of friends, and friends of friends, of Mormon leaders. It's perfectly natural really: you need to buy concrete to construct all those parking lots, and strip malls, and churches, and houses, right? Somebody has to get the work, buy the materials, sell the materials, on and on. And if that leader with the cousin who's a major developer hires him on as a "consultant..." what's the harm in that? If it resembles any other organization of similar size on Earth, then this happens A LOT.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I am happy to pay tithing and to give generously to such an organization.
And I would be happy to be treated in a Cuban hospital. But I would not want to live in that society.
See, you can provide me with a thousand true anecdotes about Mormon charity. I would believe all of them. It would not stop me from being rational about how people and money work. It would not inspire an iota of trust. Mormons are not any different from anyone else in that regard- despite your press to the contrary (and it is press).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boris,
I didn't take it out of context. In fact I specifically used the context you used-ongoing 'unopposed' abuse-both times. But even if I hadn't, it's a discussion board. I don't need to ask for your permission to remark upon what you say.
quote:Furthermore. My other point was that the church has no need to outline every expense it makes to the membership of the church or the public. Demanding it do so is an unnecessary burden on the leadership that would require a level of expense to distribute that would most definitely be better spent helping people.
Since this is the very first time you've made this point, I'm not sure how I can be expected to have known it. Now, this point seems pretty strange. I don't see how it would cost very much money to allow members access to the church's own bookkeeping records.
As for crying from the rooftops, this is also the first time you've offered this reason. Finally we're getting somewhere. First let me say that you're *already* crying them from the rooftops-the defense of secret bookkeeping is that the church does great, virtuous things with the money, making a need for transparency unnecessary. As for publicizing charitable contributions, I'm not sure why you think I'm talking about total, absolute publicity down to the smallest detail of every facet of the church's finances, to be made available to anyone anytime.
Again, I'm not insisting on an evil conspiracy. Did you just gloss over when I said that concerns about malice or greed aren't the only matter? What about simple inefficient or foolish use, as BB and I were discussing? Anyway, as for being insulting, if anyone chooses to be insulted by my expressing wariness and skepticism about the virtue and efficiency of the spending of an organization whose records are secret, well, that's their business. But it's a strange sort of emotional blackmail-if you're so 'cynical', you're being insulting!
quote:And I used the wrong word in saying "Hatred"...I meant prejudice. I used hatred because my vocabulary broke. Basically, I was saying that people in the public who want to view the finances of the church want to because they feel that it would reveal some deep dark evil that the church is doing so they can justify their prejudice against the church. Realistically, it's probably more like Romney's tax returns. A whole lot of "well that was boring".
Ok, this is important. Mistrust of secret bookkeeping doesn't equal a belief that there's an evil conspiracy. It simply doesn't. I know because I mistrust secrecy like that without insisting that there is an evil conspiracy. Now, you can either believe that I'm stating my truthful thoughts on the matter or not, but you don't know the minds of the people questioning your institution half as well as you think.
As for Romney, his returns were far from boring, what we had of them, but it's interesting that you draw such a comparison. It was an election for public office. He was effectively asking us for a job. In that case, we decide the questions asked in the interview, not him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:They visited us and comforted us when we allowed them to. They offered to pay the bills, and didn't ask for anything in return.
Without disparaging the aid your community gave you when you needed it, because I value that sort of commitment to others and respect it, they did ask for something in return. It wasn't a condition of the assistance, but they did ask.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Your representation of the church's finances is both misguided and bereft of actual facts, Orincoro. You choose to believe that the church is wasting my money, with no evidence to support that belief, because you *want* the church to be this evil thing you think it is. I'm sorry. It isn't.
You don't know what the facts are. Nor does he. That's the point.
Richard Dawkins doesn't run an atheist church. This is another area in which you've decided, quite against the actual truth of the matter, what a group of people believe about themselves and others. Now if I were going to approach this conversation as you have, I'd insist you hate them and believe there's an evil secret involved. But I don't-I'll simply point out you're wrong.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: imagine we had an "athiest church," that functioned in *exactly* the same way as the Mormon church functions in terms of finances.
Ever bought a book by Richard Dawkins?
No, Richard Dawkins is an asshole. And a poor writer to boot.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Your representation of the church's finances is both misguided and bereft of actual facts, Orincoro. You choose to believe that the church is wasting my money, with no evidence to support that belief, because you *want* the church to be this evil thing you think it is. I'm sorry. It isn't.
You don't know what the facts are. Nor does he. That's the point.
Richard Dawkins doesn't run an atheist church. This is another area in which you've decided, quite against the actual truth of the matter, what a group of people believe about themselves and others. Now if I were going to approach this conversation as you have, I'd insist you hate them and believe there's an evil secret involved. But I don't-I'll simply point out you're wrong.
Exactly so. I am on record as saying, I doubt the Mormon church is actually evil- in the way that I doubt all things that are likely to be far more complicated than anyone is willing to admit. Just like I thought the Bush administration wasn't evil, when a lot of liberals said they were. It just couldn't have been that simple.
Same principle here, really: I am suspicious -extremely suspicious- of an organization that demands so much trust, and characterizes its secrecy as "propriety." But I am suspicious only because I adhere to a very simple axiom of human behavior: absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the knowledge of the church's finances, or a reign on that knowledge, is a form of power. If the organization is apprehensive about seeding that power to its members, and goes so far as to set up a dummy (excuse the characterization, but audits are not audits if they are internal) auditing mechanism to give the appearance of order and openness, I wonder. Real order and openness would be to give some group who *opposes* the Mormon church, the job of auditing its finances. Wouldn't that be interesting?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I am happy to pay tithing and to give generously to such an organization.
And I would be happy to be treated in a Cuban hospital. But I would not want to live in that society.
See, you can provide me with a thousand true anecdotes about Mormon charity. I would believe all of them. It would not stop me from being rational about how people and money work. It would not inspire an iota of trust. Mormons are not any different from anyone else in that regard- despite your press to the contrary (and it is press).
Cynicism is definitely an effective strategy for avoiding hucksters. I wish you all the best with it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:They visited us and comforted us when we allowed them to. They offered to pay the bills, and didn't ask for anything in return.
Without disparaging the aid your community gave you when you needed it, because I value that sort of commitment to others and respect it, they did ask for something in return. It wasn't a condition of the assistance, but they did ask.
I'm not following. What do you think they asked for?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Thank you Scott. It saves me %10 of my income every month. And it doesn't inspire me to emotionally blackmail people who don't share my beliefs.
You would feel the same way, if you were a good person... Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:They visited us and comforted us when we allowed them to. They offered to pay the bills, and didn't ask for anything in return.
Without disparaging the aid your community gave you when you needed it, because I value that sort of commitment to others and respect it, they did ask for something in return. It wasn't a condition of the assistance, but they did ask.
I'm not following. What do you think they asked for?
I would suppose that they tacitly asked for your fealty.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I was keeping it strictly monetary-they ask for money. But, to their credit, it isn't a precondition, or at least not exactly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I too have received welfare assistance from the church, including food, and even therapy paid for. There was no discussion whatsoever about what I needed to do from my end to earn these benefits. I needed only ask for help from the bishop, and it was given.
When I moved into my current home, the new ward sent 10 men and boys to help me with my things. I wish I could say I've been very active in this new ward, but things keep coming up. When I do go to church, nobody mentions the help I received. When I get an email from the priesthood leader indicating somebody needs similar help, I make time to help out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Do I need to point out that the church releasing its financial information to the public serves no purpose except to expose the church to pointless and unnecessary scrutiny at the hands of armchair politicians? Releasing it to just the membership will inevitably lead to an unapproved public release of that information.
This is some eye-opening rationalization.
It could serve no other purpose? Do you genuinely believe this?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, I was keeping it strictly monetary-they ask for money. But, to their credit, it isn't a precondition, or at least not exactly.
Actually, no. Tithing isn't necessarily a component of exchange in the Mormon church.
For example, a bunch of us spent a three weekends up in NJ, helping people clean up from the hurricane. Few of the folks we helped were Mos.
I know a couple families who need help and who receive it consistently even though they never come to church. Granted the distribution of this kind of aid is locally managed; other leaders may have different ideas about how welfare should work.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Thank you Scott. It saves me %10 of my income every month. And it doesn't inspire me to emotionally blackmail people who don't share my beliefs.
You would feel the same way, if you were a good person...
I try not to emotionally blackmail people. This is the ideal to which I aspire:
quote:39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. 40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen. 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— 43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; 44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. 45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. 46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 121)
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I'd like to address a point I think Rakeesh has made but I want to make sure I understand the point first. Are you of the opinion that if the Mormon church is perfect in it's dealings with tithing then what do they have to hide? Why are they keeping it secret?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Back to the abuse and victims thing, The second counselor who is a pedophile, I cant do anything about it. He was not legally convicted, I am not in his ward and I was not his victim therefore, I may have heard from two witnesses about his abuse, but my reports mean nothing. I have to convince his victims to come forward if I want anything done. One victim did report to her stake president what was happening at the time, but the stake president covere it up (abuser was his buddy's son). So, from my attempts this week to stop this pedophile, the church is not being helpful at all. Also, there is a prestige and trust embedded in being a member of the bishopric. A pedophile will use that trust to get access beyond what the church officially grants him. For example, the nursery leader in my mom's ward used to offer to babysit for free for the parents of his nursery kids using lines about how great the kid is in nursery and how the kid is already comfortable with him and he loves the kids and so it would be no problem.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Tithing funds are not used the same way fast offering funds are. It's the fast offering funds that a ward bishop has discretion to use on behalf of ward and community members in need.
Unlike the payment of tithing, which is voluntary but is tied to a member's ability to attend the temple, the payment of fast offerings is absolutely at the discretion of the member and not under any kind of accountability or obligation. The fast offering funds collected are devoted 100% to welfare use at the local level. It is, in effect, a charity with little to no overhead costs. Members can even request that their donations be used for a specific need in special instances.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
scholarette:
"not legally convicted."
So...was there a trial? Was he found not guilty?
I'm sorry, but from what you've been able to say here, I'd have a hard time condemning the guy even outside church standards. There's just not enough evidence.
I've seen it go both ways-- a stake president and a bishop who were just completely unprepared for allegations against a member and who were overwhelmed by the potential impact; and a bishopric who took quick action to protect the ward against a predator.
There's no doubt that leaders in the Church need to be trained beyond the concept of two-deep leadership. Given an unprepared and naive leadership, the hierarchical structure of local congregations can feed predators.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The victim wouldn't go to trial so no trial happened. If they had, he would have been convicted and he did admit everything to the stake president. Right now, there is enough evidence to open an investigation regarding another victim but again, no one is willing to report anything to official yet.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Back to the abuse and victims thing, The second counselor who is a pedophile, I cant do anything about it. He was not legally convicted, I am not in his ward and I was not his victim therefore, I may have heard from two witnesses about his abuse, but my reports mean nothing. I have to convince his victims to come forward if I want anything done. One victim did report to her stake president what was happening at the time, but the stake president covere it up (abuser was his buddy's son). So, from my attempts this week to stop this pedophile, the church is not being helpful at all. Also, there is a prestige and trust embedded in being a member of the bishopric. A pedophile will use that trust to get access beyond what the church officially grants him. For example, the nursery leader in my mom's ward used to offer to babysit for free for the parents of his nursery kids using lines about how great the kid is in nursery and how the kid is already comfortable with him and he loves the kids and so it would be no problem.
Honestly, if the flipping stake president is involved in a cover-up like that, it needs to go to the next level with the area authority overseeing your stake. Now I wish I were more familiar with the procedures for reporting something of this nature; I will have to find out more. By all means, don't let this matter rest.
There is certainly trust that goes with being a member of the bishopric along with a certain amount of deference--but by no means immunity or protection from the consequences of such actions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Unlike the payment of tithing, which is voluntary but is tied to a member's ability to attend the temple,
"tied to?" I was under the impression that tithing was mandatory to be allowed to attend the temple (and everything else that's a gateway for, such as getting married)
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Unlike the payment of tithing, which is voluntary but is tied to a member's ability to attend the temple,
"tied to?" I was under the impression that tithing was mandatory to be allowed to attend the temple (and everything else that's a gateway for, such as getting married)
Marriage isn't a precursor to getting into the temple. All prospective missionaries go to the temple before their missions. Many women go before they are married (or have a prospect of being married).
Also, I think you are straining at the gnats over syntax in this case.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
You seem to have not parsed his statement correctly. He wasn't saying you need to be married to enter the temple. He was saying you need to enter the temple to be married.
Tithe >> Temple Recommend >> Temple Marriage
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
In order to be issued a temple recommend, yes, one of the requirements is declaring yourself a full tithe payer. However, paying tithing is not a requirement to being a member of the church. It's not mandatory any more than being able to attend the temple is mandatory.
Church members can be married outside the temple. Ceremonies for members are often performed at church buildings or other venues. Yes, being married in the temple is regarded as preferable in the church, and comes with more blessings and promises, the same as being able to enter the temple is regarded as optimal in terms of making the most of what the church promises.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To Scott and BlackBlade, I think we may be coming at this with some different definitions in mind.
When I say the church does ask for something in exchange for its charitable work, I do mean 'ask' literally, not in the sense of purchase as it is often used. The church does ask its members to contribute in the form of tithing-it cannot be said that it offers out charity without asking anything in return.
However, what I meant when I said that it was to its credit, it really is often an 'ask'. It will provide meaningful help to people in need, and not just in the form of a friendly casserole but also in labor and service. So big ups to the LDS church-the serious commitment I have read of and observed to serving others is one of the reasons I do respect many elements of the church, particularly compared to many other churches. My only point, having included all of those qualifiers, was to say that the church *does* ask something of its members, however. And to be even more clear, that wasn't even a criticism, or at least s very light one. It's hardly immoral to ask for tithings if they'll be used to support charity, and as a practical matter it's necessary to do so.
The discussion, for me, isn't focused on tithing or charity, but to ask why it is necessary for the details of these things to be secret from not just the public at large (which lacks standing to insist), but from its own membership. My criticism is to express surprise and confusion as to why this must be so, if the money us so honorably spent. In many cases this would be taken to mean I don't think it *is* honorably spent, but that's not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is pointing out that none of us know, or at least none of us know beyond much except anecdotes. I'm saying that if the church wants the story of its spending to be a straightforward 'spent justly and charitably and righteously', then it has to throw some daylight on the matter. Until it does, it doesn't get to insist upon that as the verdict.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The problem with saying go to the next level is that we are looking at terrified children. The girl only reported the abuse because she wanted to go do baptisms for the dead and since she had been involved in a sexual relationship (unwillingly but still involved) se thought she couldn't go. The girl was not going to be able to hande reporting up the ladder. Shes an adult and she still can't talk about what was done to her. So, the multilevel structure of the church might be good, but it doesn't work if the one beig abused is a child. There is a lot more going on there that I can't talk about.
I will admit that the nursery leader pedophile's bishop hadled that circumstance with remarkable ability. If you want an interesting sacrament, come to the first fast meeting after that is revealed, especially if you hadn't heard about it yet.
I guess my complaint is that I would like some more uniformity to the system. I think every bishop needs to have some classes/training on sexual abuse before anyone is allowed to talk to them. I also would like a unit on no means no- if the girls story is I said no, he did x anyway, a bishop needs to understand that is rape.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is frustrating to me that people are still (and this is mostly true for my Church) "reporting" crimes to their religious leaders instead of to the police. If I were caught shoplifting, the store manager wouldn't call my boss; he would call the cops.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is frustrating to me that people are still (and this is mostly true for my Church) "reporting" crimes to their religious leaders instead of to the police. If I were caught shoplifting, the store manager wouldn't call my boss; he would call the cops.
Seconded!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I agree, but I think that since the abuse cases I know of almost always were not being reported as crimes but as issues of sexual purity that te victim thinks they need to repent of, bishops need to be aware and educated because they might very well be the first and only person it is reported to. I dont think a victim should feel ashamed but many do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Another frustration, on a matter that likely is one of the foundations for Western problems dealing with sex abuse-that something a figure in authority does to a child would be viewed by that child, thanks to their teaching, as a matter of *the child's* 'sexual purity' being somehow tarnished.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I am happy to pay tithing and to give generously to such an organization.
And I would be happy to be treated in a Cuban hospital. But I would not want to live in that society.
See, you can provide me with a thousand true anecdotes about Mormon charity. I would believe all of them. It would not stop me from being rational about how people and money work. It would not inspire an iota of trust. Mormons are not any different from anyone else in that regard- despite your press to the contrary (and it is press).
Cynicism is definitely an effective strategy for avoiding hucksters. I wish you all the best with it.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Thank you Scott. It saves me %10 of my income every month.
Yeah I don't think the avoiding hucksters line was anything but a trap when you are talking about how easy it is to be wary of a religion founded by joseph smith, so
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Can you clarify? I'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
An interesting article by a theologian who was once a close colleague.
Hopefully the conservatives finally lose out, but it's unlikely. The Church could really use a return to a more decentralized era, but they are constantly afraid of straying far from tradition. The question is how another conservative pope might negatively affect the membership of the Church and conversely what the election of a liberal pope would do to the membership of the Church. It will be interesting, and I hope and pray that they elect someone that isn't a complete let down.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Thank you Scott. It saves me %10 of my income every month. And it doesn't inspire me to emotionally blackmail people who don't share my beliefs.
You would feel the same way, if you were a good person...
Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on who you are, our current tax system means that we are essentially subsidizing donations to churches. In the end if you're smart with filing your taxes you aren't "actually" giving up 10% of your disposable income.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Do I need to point out that the church releasing its financial information to the public serves no purpose except to expose the church to pointless and unnecessary scrutiny at the hands of armchair politicians? Releasing it to just the membership will inevitably lead to an unapproved public release of that information.
This is some eye-opening rationalization.
It could serve no other purpose? Do you genuinely believe this?
Yeah, there was some strangeness in that one.
Imagine: "... the US government releasing its financial information to the public serves no purpose except to expose the government to pointless and unnecessary scrutiny. Releasing it to Americans will inevitably lead to an unapproved release of that information to other countries." " ... UNICEF releasing its financial information to the public serves no purpose except to expose UNICEF to pointless and unnecessary scrutiny. Releasing it to just to people who give to charity will inevitably lead to an unapproved public release of that information." " ... the Communist party releasing its financial information to the public serves no purpose except to expose the party to pointless and unnecessary scrutiny. Releasing it to just to party members will inevitably lead to an unapproved public release of that information." " ... Apple releasing its financial information to the public serves no purpose except to expose Apple to pointless and unnecessary scrutiny. Releasing it to just to shareholders will inevitably lead to an unapproved public release of that information."
There are just so many contexts in which this kind of statement would draw immediate suspicion.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
T-Shirt I saw: "Too Pooped to Pope 2013"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Can you clarify? I'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say.
From the perspective of most people knowledgeable about the Joseph Smith story, Mormonism is the product of a con man making stuff up. From the perspective of a skeptic or a rationalist, the whole thing comes off as ridiculously transparent.
So Orincoro's response was totally going to be that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: From the perspective of a skeptic or a rationalist, the whole thing comes off as ridiculously transparent.
Well when you get your information from a site that quotes Southpark while calling itself the "Rational Wiki"...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Can you clarify? I'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say.
From the perspective of most people knowledgeable about the Joseph Smith story, Mormonism is the product of a con man making stuff up. From the perspective of a skeptic or a rationalist, the whole thing comes off as ridiculously transparent.
So Orincoro's response was totally going to be that.
The summary in the article gets quite a few things correct. But it overstates quite a few things as well.
Annnnd if you look at the link for the "fraud conviction" it sounds like Joseph Smith found the chest the man asked him to find, and told him a bunch of things about himself he couldn't have known... so I'm not sure why it's being linked other than to show some court somewhere found him guilty of using a stone to find treasure.
edit: Also, "born of relatively affluent and well-educated parents?" His parents were literally dirt poor.
more edits: It's completely inaccurate about his not telling anybody including his closest family members about the first vision or the gold plates. Their journal entrees attest to this.
good grief more edit: It says several people who claimed to have seen the gold plates recanted. I have never heard of a single one doing so.
final edit: And I stopped reading the article because it couldn't be more biased. I mean, seriously.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
BB, did you notice the prominent quote from Southpark at the top? I'm pretty sure it gets most of its information from that one episode...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: BB, did you notice the prominent quote from Southpark at the top? I'm pretty sure it gets most of its information from that one episode...
I've seen that episode, I don't think the article gets most of its information from that. It's been awhile, but I think the episode focuses mostly on the first vision, finding the plates, translating, and that's it.
As far as their descriptions of translation, they probably aren't far from the truth. Joseph Smith did use a seer stone, he did put it into his hat and look into it. He translated without the plates physically in front of him. He also said by the end he no longer needed to use his stone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Straightforward questions on a few matters of which I'm almost totally ignorant: is it a part of the Mormon faith that Smith did translate the Egyptian language before anyone else had done so in more modern times (that is, you know, in the last few centuries), or is this a bit of associated history but not considered doctrine, or is it just a legend told about Smith, but not assigned religious significance?
Related questions: if these translations are purported to have happened, do the materials still exist? If so, who has them, and who if anyone has been permitted to see them?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Straightforward questions on a few matters of which I'm almost totally ignorant: is it a part of the Mormon faith that Smith did translate the Egyptian language before anyone else had done so in more modern times (that is, you know, in the last few centuries), or is this a bit of associated history but not considered doctrine, or is it just a legend told about Smith, but not assigned religious significance?
Related questions: if these translations are purported to have happened, do the materials still exist? If so, who has them, and who if anyone has been permitted to see them?
It's a difficult question to answer, but I will try. I've never heard it said in the church that Joseph Smith translated Egyptian before anybody else could. It's just never mentioned. Seems silly to believe so, since the Rosetta Stone clearly demonstrates people in the past could translate Egyptian, and who knows, maybe we just didn't know who was around that still could, we just didn't find anybody and assumed it was a lost language until the stone showed up.
Anyway, as to your second question yes and no. The original manuscripts (along with an untranslated Book of Joseph in Egypt) were believed to have been lost in a fire that consumed a museum in Chicago. About 50 years or so ago, a man doing some research happened on some of the papyrus in an archive in New York, and recognized the images as identical to the facsimiles found in LDS scriptures. The church was given back the papyrus. It was generally believed (though wrong) that these are the exact papyrus Joseph Smith used to write the book of Abraham.
After looking at these papyrus it was concluded both in and out of the church that these papyrus have no relation to the text of the Book of Abraham. Not only that, the original translations that accompany the facsimiles are also hopelessly inaccurate.
Apologists have pointed out that the manuscript that contains the translations of the facsimiles is not in Joseph Smith's hand, and must have been done by a scribe. We cannot be sure the scribe was actually dictating a translation by Joseph Smith. Perhaps it was somebody else's translations, or supposed impressions. There is no question the actual book of Abraham was written by Joseph Smith, only that the facsimiles and *their* translations might not have been.
In any case, I don't think the facsimiles should be in the scriptures. It's clear the images were not transcribed correctly, and the translations appear to have serious problems.
Anyway, people in the church don't really pay much attention to the facsimiles or this issue. They mostly just read the Book of Abraham, which like the Book of Mormon does not have original source material we can compare it to. The care more about the truths found within.
edit: Changed 15 years to, about 50 years. It was a lot longer ago than I thought.
[ March 02, 2013, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I'm pretty sure it gets most of its information from that one episode...
Then you're, well, obviously not very skeptical.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: final edit: And I stopped reading the article because it couldn't be more biased. I mean, seriously.
A question: would you say that the mormon church's historical account about Joseph Smith is unbiased or the least biased account available?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: final edit: And I stopped reading the article because it couldn't be more biased. I mean, seriously.
A question: would you say that the mormon church's historical account about Joseph Smith is unbiased or the least biased account available?
Heck no. But nobody brought up the LDS church's official biography of Joseph Smith.
edit: If the article is intending to tell an objective telling of who Joseph Smith was, it fails miserably.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BB,
Oh, sure, I should be specific-I was asking whether it was claimed that Smith had translated Egyptian before anyone else did, not that no one else could have anywhere. Overall the question I was asking about primary sources, and their current availability. Thanks kindly for answering.
Also, I wanted to point out that I'm appreciative of your willingness to discuss these things with a courteous demeanor, as a serious, calm person, and to treat even frankly skeptical questions as arguments rather than harsh personal attacks. I don't just offer that appreciation in contrast to the behavior of others, either-respect, on its own, and thanks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The peril of small wikis, then. I guess I could go find some other better nonaffiliated purchase of the info on smith, his mastery of the egyptian language, etc.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I'm pretty sure it gets most of its information from that one episode...
Then you're, well, obviously not very skeptical.
I'm extremely skeptical of a source that calls itself the "Rational Wiki" but makes very prominent use of a quote from a cartoon satire.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The point is, the article obviously didn't get its information from south park. It just prefaced the article with a quote from south park.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Honestly, I don't know *where* the article got its information because they didn't cite anything, except of course the link to the New York vs. Smith text, which doesn't actually explain where the original came from, how to find it, how the original was found, or anything else like that. In fact, the only reference to how that document was found I can find *anywhere* is a vague reference to a 54 page "Brochure". I can't find when it was found, I can't find any news articles about it being found. All I find is rumor and innuendo.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Honestly, I don't know *where* the article got its information because they didn't cite anything, except of course the link to the New York vs. Smith text, which doesn't actually explain where the original came from, how to find it, how the original was found, or anything else like that. In fact, the only reference to how that document was found I can find *anywhere* is a vague reference to a 54 page "Brochure". I can't find when it was found, I can't find any news articles about it being found. All I find is rumor and innuendo.
I don't understand this response. How could you not already know about those ideas? I mean, you're not saying that the link or the episode said anything false, yet you don't seem to like it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I do know about those ideas. I've heard of many of them, but haven't taken the time to research them in depth (Which I would have done, and did a little, if the article had given some kind of citation). What I'm calling out here is the fact that Samp used that particular link as evidence of what "a skeptic or a rationalist" thinks, but the text of the link is rife with innuendo, rumor, and supposition with no cited works to back up claims it makes. Thus making it a very inaccurate measure of how a skeptic or rationalist would view the story. Unless I'm giving skeptics and rationalists too much of a benefit of the doubt when I consider that a skeptic or rationalist would want to rely on verifiable facts rather than sarcasm and satire as a basis for their ideals.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: BB,
Oh, sure, I should be specific-I was asking whether it was claimed that Smith had translated Egyptian before anyone else did, not that no one else could have anywhere. Overall the question I was asking about primary sources, and their current availability. Thanks kindly for answering.
Also, I wanted to point out that I'm appreciative of your willingness to discuss these things with a courteous demeanor, as a serious, calm person, and to treat even frankly skeptical questions as arguments rather than harsh personal attacks. I don't just offer that appreciation in contrast to the behavior of others, either-respect, on its own, and thanks.
You bet. Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I do know about those ideas. I've heard of many of them, but haven't taken the time to research them in depth (Which I would have done, and did a little, if the article had given some kind of citation). What I'm calling out here is the fact that Samp used that particular link as evidence of what "a skeptic or a rationalist" thinks, but the text of the link is rife with innuendo, rumor, and supposition with no cited works to back up claims it makes. Thus making it a very inaccurate measure of how a skeptic or rationalist would view the story. Unless I'm giving skeptics and rationalists too much of a benefit of the doubt when I consider that a skeptic or rationalist would want to rely on verifiable facts rather than sarcasm and satire as a basis for their ideals.
But if you're aware of that stuff... I guess I just can't wrap my head around the idea of being aware of really bizarre claims about my religion, and not being able to say whether those claims are true or false? How does that not bother you?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I do know about those ideas. I've heard of many of them, but haven't taken the time to research them in depth (Which I would have done, and did a little, if the article had given some kind of citation). What I'm calling out here is the fact that Samp used that particular link as evidence of what "a skeptic or a rationalist" thinks, but the text of the link is rife with innuendo, rumor, and supposition with no cited works to back up claims it makes. Thus making it a very inaccurate measure of how a skeptic or rationalist would view the story. Unless I'm giving skeptics and rationalists too much of a benefit of the doubt when I consider that a skeptic or rationalist would want to rely on verifiable facts rather than sarcasm and satire as a basis for their ideals.
But if you're aware of that stuff... I guess I just can't wrap my head around the idea of being aware of really bizarre claims about my religion, and not being able to say whether those claims are true or false? How does that not bother you?
It does bother me. Because almost all of those claims are based on rumors about rumors about rumors. I like to go to the source of information, and if I can't get a source, it's hard to get at the truth, and that just pisses me off.
There are a lot of claims about the church's beliefs I've run across that actually do come from an obtainable source, and each time I've run across those sources it becomes pretty apparent to me how and why people were mistaken in their claims when the evidence is viewed from an understanding about the core doctrines of the church. When I can't find a source of some specific piece of information, or some claim or what not, what do you expect me to do with it?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ...i t becomes pretty apparent to me how and why people were mistaken in their claims when the evidence is viewed from an understanding about the core doctrines of the church.
You need to understand how that sounds to others.
"Understanding about," and "viewed from." If you are not very explicit about what you mean here, come across as: "belief in," and "biased by."
The trouble with this kind of speech in general is that it is difficult if not impossible to know whether you are substituting neutral (ish) sounding language because you are intellectually aware of how language of indoctrination sounds to others. Additionally, you can make it appear as if you are also subconsciously aware that your "understanding about," and "view of," church lore is in fact indoctrination, and does not stand up to scrutiny, even from you- making it easier for you to refer to your beliefs as "views," which unlike beliefs, sound like they could have a basis in rational, reasonable thinking.
This is very much not unlike the language you hear often from Scientologists, who like Mormons, are pressed to defend or deny peculiarly specific and specifically weird claims about their church (mostly owing to the lack of distance of time involved). They often refer to the skeptic "not knowing," and "being unaware," and "not understanding," the core principles involved with Scientology. This is, I hesitate to say always, but pretty much always, the language of rationality disguising indoctrination- with the understanding that Scientology's core beliefs are a demonstrable fraud, when viewed rationally. That we can substantively prove their fraudulence is just a product of the age of that religion; it is not more fraudulent than Mormonism- just more apparently a fraud.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:There are a lot of claims about the church's beliefs I've run across that actually do come from an obtainable source, and each time I've run across those sources it becomes pretty apparent to me how and why people were mistaken in their claims when the evidence is viewed from an understanding about the core doctrines of the church. When I can't find a source of some specific piece of information, or some claim or what not, what do you expect me to do with it? [/QB]
It's just that if I were in your position, I'd obsess over it until I got some clear answers. You seem to be ok not really knowing.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:"However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.
"To those I have offended I apologise and ask forgiveness. To the Catholic church and people of Scotland, I also apologise. I will now spend the rest of my life in retirement. I will play no further part in the public life of the Catholic church in Scotland."
Of course, his admission is likely an understatement as in most situations like this.
quote:A key figure behind allegations of inappropriate behaviour by Cardinal Keith O'Brien has launched a powerful attack on the Catholic church's response to the complaints, saying he fears the church hierarchy would "crush" him if they could.
... He said that when the four came forward to the church, they were asked to make sworn signed statements to Mennini. But they were also warned that if their complaints became public knowledge, they would cause "immense further damage to the church". The church, he says, failed to act quickly and appropriately, adding that he fears the matter was in danger of being swept under the carpet.
... 'Lenny' [*name changed] says the cardinal was his spiritual director and used bedtime prayers as an opportunity to make advances to his young student.
"I knew myself to be heterosexual," he says, "but I did say to others that I thought it would be easier to get through seminary if you were gay."
Lenny had had a conversation with a priest – we'll call him 'Peter' – whom he hadn't spoken to for years. Peter told Lenny about an inappropriate relationship the cardinal had instigated with him. Two other priests were drawn in: 'Kenny' and 'John'. Both had experienced unwanted advances from the cardinal.
"I'd never wanted to 'out' Keith [O'Brien] just for being gay," says Lenny. "But this was confirming that his behaviour towards me was part of his modus operandi. He has hurt others, probably worse, than he affected me. And that only became clear a few weeks ago."
... But I [reporter for The Observer] had four statements that described the cardinal attempting to touch, kiss, or have sex with people in his care.
"He started fondling my body, kissing me and telling me how special I was to him and how much he loved me," one had written. One of the statements was five pages long. Given the strength of the evidence we had, the Observer chose to publish the story.
... Peter wrote to me saying it had been the worst week of his life. He couldn't eat, couldn't sleep. Each of those men spoke out knowing it could ruin their lives. Some of them were trying to work out what order they might be able to take refuge in if the church disowned them for speaking.
The biggest sin in the Catholic church has historically been "scandalising the faithful". That is why the abhorrent cover-ups of child sex-abuse scandals have been part of the church's history. They shield their own – and if you speak against them, you stop being their own. Archbishop Tartaglia of Glasgow – who caused outrage last year when he linked the tragically premature death of David Cairns MP to his homosexual lifestyle – publicly said prayers for the cardinal at mass in Edinburgh after being named as the cardinal's temporary replacement. He invited the cameras in while he did it.
... Priests tell me there is a "gay culture" in the Scottish Catholic church – but not an open, healthy one. In some ways, perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise. The church has always had a deeply cynical side when it comes to sexual morality. Lenny recalls being a young priest, accompanying an older priest who would rise to great heights in the church. The older man was drunk and was ranting about men who left the priesthood. Why leave to have sex? Why didn't they just visit a sauna and go to confession in the morning?
... Some people have questioned, though, whether his alleged behaviour constitutes abuse. After all, this involves adults, not children... Lenny gave up his priesthood when O'Brien was promoted to be his bishop. He did not want to be in his power. "He harmed me in so many ways," he explained.
And ask Peter if this story involved abuse. Peter has undergone long-term psychological counselling. His experiences with the cardinal are part of his records. Peter admits he even contemplated suicide. And still people are shouting "Reveal yourself!"
Why should he? ...
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I do know about those ideas. I've heard of many of them, but haven't taken the time to research them in depth (Which I would have done, and did a little, if the article had given some kind of citation). What I'm calling out here is the fact that Samp used that particular link as evidence of what "a skeptic or a rationalist" thinks, but the text of the link is rife with innuendo, rumor, and supposition with no cited works to back up claims it makes. Thus making it a very inaccurate measure of how a skeptic or rationalist would view the story. Unless I'm giving skeptics and rationalists too much of a benefit of the doubt when I consider that a skeptic or rationalist would want to rely on verifiable facts rather than sarcasm and satire as a basis for their ideals.
Maybe we can be sarcastic and occasionally use satire, and also think that the whole Joseph Smith story is irrational to trust, but maybe we could give a pass to his startling revelations about the egyptian language?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We experienced a moment of levity during the Eucharistic Prayer at mass yesterday when the celebrant offered prayers for "Ben...uh...TBA, I guess".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
errr...so, sorry I got that started. I wasn't trying to single out LDS specifically. Once a conservative religion with strict sex roles gets big enough, you're pretty much guaranteed to have a significant section of their leadership are going to be violating these codes. There are explanations of various lengths I can go into for this, but they pretty much boil down to "that's just how (some) people work".
I only threw LDS out there because I was talking to an LDS person. And I only mentioned that vocally anti-gay thing to underline how people often act in the opposite way people often expect.
To me, thinking that there aren't at least say 3 or 4 guys in the LDS leadership who like to have gay sex on the side and who look out for each other in this is, as I said, terribly naive. I'm sure that there are far more who are just cheating on their wives. That's the nature of people in positions of power, especially ones of a western conservative moral bent.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
To me, thinking that there aren't at least say 3 or 4 guys in the LDS leadership who like to have gay sex on the side and who look out for each other in this is, as I said, terribly naive. I'm sure that there are far more who are just cheating on their wives. That's the nature of people in positions of power, especially ones of a western conservative moral bent.
I'd just say "that's the nature of people", and leave it at that. It's like people getting so angry over the Clinton/Lewinsky thing. How do people get to a certain age and NOT understand human nature?
For that matter, often the most promiscuous girls I've known have been the most religious. Not that that says anything about religious girls, but more just about human nature.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: errr...so, sorry I got that started. I wasn't trying to single out LDS specifically. Once a conservative religion with strict sex roles gets big enough, you're pretty much guaranteed to have a significant section of their leadership are going to be violating these codes. There are explanations of various lengths I can go into for this, but they pretty much boil down to "that's just how (some) people work".
I only threw LDS out there because I was talking to an LDS person. And I only mentioned that vocally anti-gay thing to underline how people often act in the opposite way people often expect.
To me, thinking that there aren't at least say 3 or 4 guys in the LDS leadership who like to have gay sex on the side and who look out for each other in this is, as I said, terribly naive. I'm sure that there are far more who are just cheating on their wives. That's the nature of people in positions of power, especially ones of a western conservative moral bent.
That's typical of people in positions of power, especially ones of a western conservative moral bent.
I find the current leadership of the church to be in some ways to be outliers (in good and bad ways) from your typical organization's leaders.
I absolutely do not believe even one of them is having secret gay sex on the side, outside the bounds of their marriage. It's not impossible, an apostle betrayed Jesus, and in Mormonism we had apostles join with mobs, leave the church, and commit adultery.
But I do not believe an apostle could long be committing such an atrocity, and not be found out quickly. They have furiously busy schedules, and maintaining mistresses or boyfriends is not something I think could be accomplished easily.
edit: And, (and I doubt you believe this) spiritually you would be able to pick up on that sort of thing.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm also going to say I don't think that is going on in the top LDS church leadership either. While I have no illusions about how the boyfriend/mistress thing is alive and well at the tops of many companies, organizations, and governments, this is one place in which it is absent. You'll say that sounds terribly biased, naive, sheeple-ish, and {insert adjective here}, but nevertheless.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I didn't buy the secret gay Mormonism sex ring thing, but the idea that it's not probable that any of the current or former apostles have had affairs or engaged in sex outside their marriage because they're too busy is more than a little silly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wouldn't say it was terribly biased or anything-rather that it was very ordinarily biased. Almost as a rule, people view their own families and institutions more favorably and optimistically than they do others. Even when they're well aware of the pitfalls of other groups similar to theirs, there will be something that permits a titled head and shrugged shoulders to dismiss the concerns.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB and afr, My impression of both of you is that you are decent people who try to do the right thing. One pitfall that people like that fall into is that they generally assume that others are like that, especially people in their in groups and especially the leaders of their in groups. It's the flip-side of people who are not particularly good people thinking that everyone is as flawed as they are and it is just "human nature".
I know I'll not be able to convince you otherwise, but I'm near certain that a large chunk of the LDS leaders are much less decent that you think they are. It will likely take several scandals before you even credit the idea, so I don't see much point in discussing it further.
Although one thing, BB. The idea that the only motivation that LDS leadership bring to fighting gay rights is that they think it is against god's will is ludicrous. There is absolutely no way that that is true.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB and afr, My impression of both of you is that you are decent people who try to do the right thing. One pitfall that people like that fall into is that they generally assume that others are like that, especially people in their in groups and especially the leaders of their in groups. It's the flip-side of people who are not particularly good people thinking that everyone is as flawed as they are and it is just "human nature".
I know I'll not be able to convince you otherwise, but I'm near certain that a large chunk of the LDS leaders are much less decent that you think they are. It will likely take several scandals before you even credit the idea, so I don't see much point in discussing it further.
Although one thing, BB. The idea that the only motivation that LDS leadership bring to fighting gay rights is that they think it is against god's will is ludicrous. There is absolutely no way that that is true.
It is also common for outsiders to compare groups they are not familiar with to groups they are.
I've met some of these men, I've studied their rhetoric for years, I pay attention to what people say about them.
I've already acknowledged the capacity for my leaders to do barbarous things. You haven't acknowledged the capacity for people to actually transcend their human natures at least in part if not on the whole, and act in such a way that exceeds expectations.
I get that it's unlikely I am right, but I believe Mormonism actually can churn out the best humanity has to offer, more than any other institution in the history of humankind. I don't expect you to agree, but you don't know the Mormonism the way I do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: And, (and I doubt you believe this) spiritually you would be able to pick up on that sort of thing.
You are right; I don't believe it. Ask thousands of Catholics who were stunned to discover that their beloved priest was molesting children. Sexual predators as a group are notoriously charismatic.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
That old joke about how it was a Catholic girl you wanted to be dating? In my high school, it was a Mormon girl.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: And, (and I doubt you believe this) spiritually you would be able to pick up on that sort of thing.
You are right; I don't believe it. Ask thousands of Catholics who were stunned to discover that their beloved priest was molesting children. Sexual predators as a group are notoriously charismatic.
Are you conflating secret gayness and child molestation?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: And, (and I doubt you believe this) spiritually you would be able to pick up on that sort of thing.
You are right; I don't believe it. Ask thousands of Catholics who were stunned to discover that their beloved priest was molesting children. Sexual predators as a group are notoriously charismatic.
Are you conflating secret gayness and child molestation?
No.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
It does seem like your last sentence does do that. I think the greater point of not being able to "spiritually detect" homosexuality or adultery is valid, but those who are secretly gay aren't "sexual predators". So pointing out the charisma of sexual predators was irrelevant unless you're conflating the two.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I feel like the goal posts are moving a bit. At first it was a certainty that there was a gay sex ring among the high leadership of the Mormon church. Now it's "To me, thinking that there aren't at least say 3 or 4 guys in the LDS leadership who like to have gay sex on the side and who look out for each other in this..." I guess that could be a ring.
I'm also unclear as to what you are considering high leadership. BlackBlade seems to be thinking the First Presidency and 12 apostles which is the top 15 people in the church. I also find it unlikely there.
If you want to start going down from there I think the likelihood increases from, "OK I can see it possible though unlikely." At the level of the 70's. To "Well we know for a fact that this has happened in the past" at the level of Stake Presidents and Bishops. BlackBlade even confirmed himself that there have absolutely been Stake Presidents who have been outed for gay sex.
There have also been a number of 70's who have been excommunicated for one reason or another, though I haven't heard of any cases of gay behavior.
So MrSquicky could you clarify a bit as to what level you have in your head? Here's a list of the different levels.
Prophet and Apostles (15 People) 70's (There are quite a few of these quorums. I'm guessing like 300 people?) Area Authorities/Mission Presidents (This has some overlap with the 70's but I'm going to put guess about 300 maybe?) Stake Presidents (A lot) Bishops (Like thousands here)
BlackBlade seems to be arguing just the first and maybe second group. I'm unclear as to what MrSquicky or anyone else is arguing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: It does seem like your last sentence does do that. I think the greater point of not being able to "spiritually detect" homosexuality or adultery is valid, but those who are secretly gay aren't "sexual predators". So pointing out the charisma of sexual predators was irrelevant unless you're conflating the two.
"Gay" was not the predator part. Abusing a position of power (religious leader) is. Not that spiritual leaders can't have healthy relationships but they are unlikely to be ones that they have to hide.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Well a gay "sex ring" among leadership, or group who secretly have sex and "look out for eachother" doesn't presuppose anyone abusing their power.
But I guess that's kind of splitting hairs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I guess I was looking more at the power dynamic. I would suspect that for a clandestine situation, sex with underlings would be more likely and easily hidden. The "sex ring" model in my head was the one at the Vatican that the Italian papers are touting.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote: Homosexual activities were constantly occuring in the showers and steam room at the Deseret Gymnasium in Salt Lake throughout the 1970s and 1980s, when I had a membership there. Several members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, one Tabernacle organist, and at least two General Authorities were participants in the sexual activies there, as personally witnessed by me or by a Gay employee I knew who worked there.) Quinn claims that First Presidency member, J. Reuben Clark, asked former Bishop Gordon Burt Affleck "to organize a surveillance for possible homosexuals in the steam room of the church-owned Deseret Gymnasium."
I don't know how historically accurate it is, but Connell O'Donovan's book cites many references as well as offering personal accounts, as he did above.
I don't claim this necessarily constitutes a "gay sex ring," but it substantiates the idea that general authorities have been involved in gay sex. In fact, according to O'Donovan (and substantiated by his sources), it appears the second-to-last General LDS Church Patriarch, Joseph Fielding Smith, was homosexual and involved in gay relationships before being banished from Utah.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Only here was the pope resigning going to turn into a question of how many mormon lieutenants or whatever have gay sex rings or how high up the brass totem they went
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... But I do not believe an apostle could long be committing such an atrocity ...
It helps to believe it if you don't consider it an "atrocity" (We're still talking about consensual sex right?)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... But I do not believe an apostle could long be committing such an atrocity ...
It helps to believe it if you don't consider it an "atrocity" (We're still talking about consensual sex right?)
Consensual sex outside the confines of marriage (and while married), especially in the context of being a leader within the Mormon church is an atrocity.
If some person who does not believe in celibacy until marriage has consensual sex with a guy or girl that is not an atrocity to me.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wouldn't say it was terribly biased or anything-rather that it was very ordinarily biased. Almost as a rule, people view their own families and institutions more favorably and optimistically than they do others. Even when they're well aware of the pitfalls of other groups similar to theirs, there will be something that permits a titled head and shrugged shoulders to dismiss the concerns.
Yeah, and I'm fully admitting I'm biased in favor of my church and its leaders. At any rate, insofar as this is all conjecture, my word is as good as anyone else's. (You might even say that, having had personal interactions with a fair number of general authorities to compare with my impressions of many other people I've met throughout my life, I have a better take on this question than many do.)
I don't agree with the shrugged shoulders thing. I'm not about to dismiss some gross mistake (or peccadillo, for that matter) just because I'm biased toward them. I would let it go in a government leader longer than I would in a church leader. They are held to incredibly high standards of conduct based on the offices they hold, standards that extend deep into their personal and family lives as well as their positions and responsibilities in the church.
Take it however you want, I guess, when I say I don't see a secret tawdry second life in any of them. I know it doesn't prove anything, but that's my opinion, informed by a lifetime of observation. But I'm not blind to the fact that it could happen.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wouldn't say it was terribly biased or anything-rather that it was very ordinarily biased. Almost as a rule, people view their own families and institutions more favorably and optimistically than they do others. Even when they're well aware of the pitfalls of other groups similar to theirs, there will be something that permits a titled head and shrugged shoulders to dismiss the concerns.
Yeah, and I'm fully admitting I'm biased in favor of my church and its leaders. At any rate, insofar as this is all conjecture, my word is as good as anyone else's. (You might even say that, having had personal interactions with a fair number of general authorities to compare with my impressions of many other people I've met throughout my life, I have a better take on this question than many do.)
I don't agree with the shrugged shoulders thing. I'm not about to dismiss some gross mistake (or peccadillo, for that matter) just because I'm biased toward them. I would let it go in a government leader longer than I would in a church leader. They are held to incredibly high standards of conduct based on the offices they hold, standards that extend deep into their personal and family lives as well as their positions and responsibilities in the church.
Take it however you want, I guess, when I say I don't see a secret tawdry second life in any of them. I know it doesn't prove anything, but that's my opinion, informed by a lifetime of observation. But I'm not blind to the fact that it could happen.
Well said.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't mean shrugged shoulders to say that you would, if discovered, brush aside any misdeeds. Rather I meant that people will shrug off the many similarities between themselves or their groups that might indicate something bad-that's one of the signatures of ongoing stunned disbelief in various church scandals-not just that it would be unlikely but even impossible for that to happen to us, so on and so forth.
As for knowing them better, well sure that does weigh in favor of your judgment, but that's not the whole case, is it? For example if someone is a brilliant liar, then many people might feel with justification that they knew them very well and yet be just as much deceived as someone just falling off the turnip truck.
None of this proves anything, of course. It doesn't even mean you should be suspicious. It's just from the outside, claims of exceptionalism and a potential to spiritually notice something ring hollow, not because (or not just because) the notion of a spiritual disturbance doesn't carry weight but because of the many people who have made similar claims in similar circumstances.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:I didn't mean shrugged shoulders to say that you would, if discovered, brush aside any misdeeds. Rather I meant that people will shrug off the many similarities between themselves or their groups that might indicate something bad-that's one of the signatures of ongoing stunned disbelief in various church scandals-not just that it would be unlikely but even impossible for that to happen to us, so on and so forth.
All right, gotcha. Considering what's being unearthed in the Catholic church, it's easy to say "Thank goodness that's not going to happen in my church" and move on.
Hopefully the Catholic crisis is prompting skeleton hunts in closets throughout my church too, and inspiring more care and caution in how abuse prevention and exposure are addressed.
It would indeed be devastating if corruption of that kind were unearthed in the senior levels of my church's leadership. Much trust is placed in those people. It would be somewhat similarly devastating if, say, the beloved and charismatic head of a company was caught with a long history of embezzlement. The fall of an icon is always devastating even as the irony is delicious.
I guess my response is that it's just as easy (especially in the era of 24-hour news feeds) to expect there to be a rotten underbelly in such a situation, and stick doggedly to that notion because nobody likes their expectations to prove false.
quote:As for knowing them better, well sure that does weigh in favor of your judgment, but that's not the whole case, is it? For example if someone is a brilliant liar, then many people might feel with justification that they knew them very well and yet be just as much deceived as someone just falling off the turnip truck.
No argument here. I'm trying to think of an aspect of life where you're not in perilous danger from others failing your trust.
quote:None of this proves anything, of course. It doesn't even mean you should be suspicious. It's just from the outside, claims of exceptionalism and a potential to spiritually notice something ring hollow, not because (or not just because) the notion of a spiritual disturbance doesn't carry weight but because of the many people who have made similar claims in similar circumstances.
Couldn't agree with you more. Such arguments tend to be dismissed gleefully upon identification.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... But I do not believe an apostle could long be committing such an atrocity ...
It helps to believe it if you don't consider it an "atrocity" (We're still talking about consensual sex right?)
Consensual sex outside the confines of marriage (and while married), especially in the context of being a leader within the Mormon church is an atrocity.
I would say have a sense of proportion.
Mass murder, the use of poison gas, nuclear weapons, agent orange, these things are atrocities.
The molestation or rape of little boys? A crime for particular priests. Arguably an atrocity for the leadership that condoned it, protected it, and allowed it to spread.
Consensual sex outside of marriage, possibly even with the consent of the married partner in question? It's not even a crime, let alone an atrocity. It would be funny, that's what it would be.
One needs to have a sense of proportion to identify the serious problems that are present in this world and the ones that are not. (And a recognition that things that are not particularly serious can happen pretty commonly)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: You left out "especially in the context of being a leader within the Mormon church". I am implying the partner does not consent, but I didn't explicitly state that.
Leaders in the church are directly responsible for being moral examples for millions of people. They accept a long legacy of strong support for marital fidelity, and are expected to defend it. They are literally representatives for Christ on earth.
Having an adulterous affair within that context is an atrocity.
Your atrocities are atrocities in any context.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I got what you meant. I didn't think that you were labeling gay sex as an atrocity (I'm not sure who did and who was just messing with you). The religious elements and betrayal of spiritual duty bit doesn't hold water for me, but I dug what you were getting at.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
White smoke.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... But I do not believe an apostle could long be committing such an atrocity ...
It helps to believe it if you don't consider it an "atrocity" (We're still talking about consensual sex right?)
Consensual sex outside the confines of marriage (and while married), especially in the context of being a leader within the Mormon church is an atrocity.
I would say have a sense of proportion.
Mass murder, the use of poison gas, nuclear weapons, agent orange, these things are atrocities.
The molestation or rape of little boys? A crime for particular priests. Arguably an atrocity for the leadership that condoned it, protected it, and allowed it to spread.
Consensual sex outside of marriage, possibly even with the consent of the married partner in question? It's not even a crime, let alone an atrocity. It would be funny, that's what it would be.
One needs to have a sense of proportion to identify the serious problems that are present in this world and the ones that are not. (And a recognition that things that are not particularly serious can happen pretty commonly)
LDS doctrine states that adultery is a sin second only in severity to murder.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Argentinian cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been elected.
New pope is 76 and had already retired once due to age.
Can't wait to do this again in four years or so!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Excellent. Watching CNN fumble their way through it should be something get to enjoy more than just a handful of times in my life.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
really ancient crusty old dude, check
archconservative who will keep the vatican in the moral stone age, check
likely involved in some really shady ugly stuff from way back when and thus will fuel endless controversy, check
catholicism™
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: LDS doctrine states that adultery is a sin second only in severity to murder.
Then that's what I'm criticizing.
It seems like a big flaw in a moral scheme if you place adultery second only to murder when most reasonable people would probably put a whole lot of actual crimes in between the two like torture, rape, assault, manslaughter, etc.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not super comfortable with adultery as second to murder mind, but you also have to realize that marriage in an LDS context is an eternal commitment. It's possibly the most important compact one ever enters into.
The ripples that go out when that covenant is violated reach out just as far I should think.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: LDS doctrine states that adultery is a sin second only in severity to murder.
Then that's what I'm criticizing.
It seems like a big flaw in a moral scheme if you place adultery second only to murder when most reasonable people would probably put a whole lot of actual crimes in between the two like torture, rape, assault, manslaughter, etc.
Also, among all those crimes mentioned (and a lot more could be included, as well), only adultery gets committed by, quite possibly, the majority of people. Even if it's not the majority, it's a huge number. The other crimes are only committed by a tiny, tiny percentage of the population.
We have a massive bit of cognitive dissonance there, really...and it's not just in the LDS church. Most societies frown on adultery pretty heavily, even as many, many people commit it.
I wonder why that is?
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Drilled into a bunch of social apes living in denser and denser populations through the last ten millenia or so.
Banging somebody's wife, no matter the time period, is a good way to make that somebody feel a little stabbity.
Social rules like this last because they help to keep peace and harmony in society. The interesting part is deciding which rules are no longer needed with the recent (past two or three centuries) technological innovation changing the way humans live and interact with each other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not super comfortable with adultery as second to murder mind, but you also have to realize that marriage in an LDS context is an eternal commitment. It's possibly the most important compact one ever enters into.
The ripples that go out when that covenant is violated reach out just as far I should think.
Well, I mean if that's what one thinks reality is then uncomfortable comparisons won't have any bearing. It does mean, though, what most would call minimizing a lot of awful things. But then frankly that's part and parcel to the idea of an afferlife of some sort mitigating what happens in this one. Whin holy cow I think this bunch of apes would be better off without.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: LDS doctrine states that adultery is a sin second only in severity to murder.
Then that's what I'm criticizing.
It seems like a big flaw in a moral scheme if you place adultery second only to murder when most reasonable people would probably put a whole lot of actual crimes in between the two like torture, rape, assault, manslaughter, etc.
Is somebody defensive about something?
Look at it in the context of morality. You make a commitment to one person over everyone else, someone who should have perfect trust in you. Adultery is the ultimate betrayal of that commitment.
Murder takes away a life, but adultery destroys a relationship that should be held above all others. It is not only a crime against the trust of your partner, it is a crime against yourself and your family / children. It is, in effect, a heinous crime against everyone you love.
Yes, it is done a lot. Does that make it excusable?
With regard to religious statutes, I would argue that it's worse than assault and torture. Think of them within the context of war? Rape might be considered a worse act against one victim, but adultery has many victims -- including children. Manslaughter isn't meditated murder and is often accidental.
Based on the number of lives it affects and the personal level of the betrayal, I'd put adultery above most crimes. Nobody dies or is physically hurt (unless you catch something), but it can emotionally destroy everyone you care about. And again, within the context of religion, it's worse than every other crime -- not within the context of law. That makes a difference.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, what's worse? Raping your wife, or cheating on her? What about torturing her?
I would say that you're confusing two issues here, in that it is bad to do bad things to someone you have promised to love and protect, but not as bad to lie to someone you have promised to love and protect as it is to, say, break off all of her fingernails and hold her underwater until she nearly dies.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
There's a whole sliding scale here, isn't there? Don't oversimplify.
What is torture? When I was a kid, we tied my sister to a chair and left her locked in a closet.
What if you commit a crime while intoxicated?
What if by committing adultery, you break apart your marriage, cause your spouse to suicide, and turn your children into alcoholics?
Where is culpability?
How bad is it to torture or accidentally kill someone you don't know? What if they don't have any family?
How bad is it to destroy the lives of everyone you care about? Everyone you've committed to and made promises to?
What heals more readily? Fingernails or a marriage?
I'm not sure there aren't any easy answers. But assault and torture are very vague words that can cover a lot of acts.
I have two points: - Defining these crimes by a single word -- rape, adultery, assault, manslaughter -- leaves out a lot of context. Obviously these can each be terrible to varying degrees. Murder is pretty straightforward. - All of these crimes other than murder and adultery are (generally) committed against a single victim. No matter how heinous, they can't easily be compared to a crime against yourself and your entire family, as in the case of adultery.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Adultery is not just lying. You are having sex with a person which also has the potential to bring a new human being into the world, with a huge chance they will live their entire life without the necessary elements in place for them to encourage them to live well as well as safeguard them from living a base existence.
Your actions also have an effect on the community that is destabilizing. Without the belief in the afterlife based aspects it's just not as far reaching an act.
That's fine if you don't believe in an afterlife, I can accept in that context a person can commit adultery, use contraception up the wazoo, and it just doesn't approach some iterations of murder, but that's not how it is for me.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would say all of those acts would impact the entire family, not just the victim, and a victim, marriage, and a family has a better chance of healing psychologically and relationship-wise from an act of adultery than from a rape or a murder.
I'll echo BB in saying the LDS church considers adultery to be a very serious sin, given the importance the church place on marriage.
However, that doesn't mean heinous acts like rape or assault are shrugged off as any less serious and devastating than they are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's fine if you don't believe in an afterlife, I can accept in that context a person can commit adultery, use contraception up the wazoo, and it just doesn't approach some iterations of murder...
Let me point out yet again the excellent reasons to not shackle yourself to a belief in an afterlife. Consider for a moment if you believed -- as some people do -- that allowing a woman to live after suffering rape shames her and her family not only in life but in the afterlife. Here you have a scenario in which murder itself is justified by a prevention of an even worse sin -- which raises the question: would it be justifiable to kill someone to prevent adultery?
quote:All of these crimes other than murder and adultery are (generally) committed against a single victim. No matter how heinous, they can't easily be compared to a crime against yourself and your entire family, as in the case of adultery.
I am absolutely certain that there are many crimes which can be committed against a single victim -- like, say, rape or murder or torture -- which would have far worse effects on my family than adultery.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't have time to post a full response, but in response the questions about context, when I said "actual crimes," I meant legally, either national or international. So if you have examples in mind like what you've done to your sister, just process it accordingly.
For rape, assault, manslaughter, I had in mind acts that would be reasonably tried and convicted under the Canadian Criminal Code. For torture, I had in mind norms from international law, like the UN Convention on torture.
Just to be clear though, to bring it back to your leader as a moral example. Are you saying that if you were forced to pick between two candidates for being a leader, with everything between them equal in all respects except that one is a rapist and one is an adulterer, your doctrine would prefer the rapist?
How about if your community had $1000 to spend on education and could either use that to either eliminate one case of manslaughter that happens in your community per year or eliminate one case of adultery, which would you pick?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Anecdotal Possible Repercussions: - Assault: Minor personal injury. Major personal injury. Ranges from a black eye to a disabling event. Possible emotional trauma (PTSD). - Rape: Possible personal injury. Major personal trauma. Likely won't effect ability to generate income. - Torture: See assault. - Adultery: Possible disease transmission to 1 or more persons. Possible destruction of marriage, impacting in severe emotional trauma to one or more family units.
The emotional impact of most of these crimes is high to one individual but likely low to everyone else. The fiscal impact can vary.
The emotional impact of adultery can impact every member of multiple families. The fiscal impact can be devastating to multiple families and affect everything from general finances to retirement to college funds.
Note: I'm taking both murder and manslaughter out of the equation.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
For rape, assault, manslaughter, I had in mind acts that would be reasonably tried and convicted under the Canadian Criminal Code. For torture, I had in mind norms from international law, like the UN Convention on torture.
How about if your community had $1000 to spend on education and could either use that to either eliminate one case of manslaughter that happens in your community per year or eliminate one case of adultery, which would you pick?
Manslaughter should generally be grouped with murder, making it worse than adultery. Let's drop this one.
Most of the other crimes don't really have a huge impact to others, unless the crime creates a major inability to function or generate income. A rape or assault or torture is a terrible event with enormous emotional repercussions, but will that necessarily impact your children and finances? What about adultery resulting in divorce?
Or is the argument that adultery really isn't that bad, and that the general outcome shouldn't be assumed to be divorce?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Adultery: Possible disease transmission to 1 or more persons. Possible destruction of marriage, impacting in severe emotional trauma to one or more family units.
Adultery, in and of itself, does not destroy a marriage. It can lead to the destruction of a marriage, but then so can assault or even unemployment. So you're left with a bunch of possible harms, and the only concrete harm is that of lying/betrayal.
I'm not saying that betrayal is a good thing, mind you. But I would enormously prefer that my wife sleep with somebody else than that she rob me and cut off my legs.
-------
quote: A rape or assault or torture is a terrible event with enormous emotional repercussions, but will that necessarily impact your children and finances? What about adultery resulting in divorce?
Rape or assault or torture can also result in divorce. And divorce doesn't necessarily destroy your finances worse than, say, losing your job as a consequence of emotional trauma can.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Or is the argument that adultery really isn't that bad, and that the general outcome shouldn't be assumed to be divorce?
I think the key distinction is that adultery is first and foremost a breach of trust. The range of potential effects of that breach of trust is very broad and depends on the temperament of those affected by or having knowledge of the event.
All other serious crimes we're looking at here cause tangible harm and - this is particularly important from a LDS perspective - impinge on the agency of others.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: And again, within the context of religion, it's worse than every other crime -- not within the context of law. That makes a difference.
Speak for your own religion, please. Mine teaches no such thing.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The LDS policy on reinstating membership to individuals who commit serious sins:
quote:If the person was disfellowshipped or excommunicated for any of the following reasons, or if he committed any of these transgressions after being disfellowshipped or excommunicated, the approval of the First Presidency is required before he may be reinstated to full fellowship or readmitted by baptism and confirmation. For the purposes of Church discipline, some of the following terms are defined in 6.7.3.
1. Murder 2. Incest 3. Sexual offense against a child or serious physical abuse of a child by an adult or by a youth who is several years older than the child 4. Apostasy 5. Committing a serious transgression while holding a prominent Church position 6. An elective transsexual operation 7. Embezzlement of Church funds or property
All of these are events that result in more or less an automatic excommunication. Adultery does not make the cut.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Adultery would be an example of a serious transgression in #5.
You can be disfellowshipped or excommunicated for committing adultery, sure. But you might not need the approval of the First Presidency to be reinstated.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Adultery would be an example of a serious transgression in #5.
Sure, but the "prominent Church position" seems to be the essential element of that. Apostles having affairs could do a lot of damage to the church. Joe Mormon in the ParkCreekVille 8th Ward - not so much.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Adultery would be an example of a serious transgression in #5.
Sure, but the "prominent Church position" seems to be the essential element of that. Apostles having affairs could do a lot of damage to the church. Joe Mormon in the ParkCreekVille 8th Ward - not so much.
Right, but the list you quoted in your post is specific to acts that require the First Presidency's involvement in the discipline/reinstatement process.
As I said, Joe Mormon's adultery will most likely be grounds for some form of discipline by the church, such as disfellowshipment or excommunication, but should Joe want to be reinstated, he may not need the approval of the First Presidency.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
That still suggests that these particular offenses are weighted more heavily than "mere" adultery.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Ah, gotcha.
I think I'm the wrong person to be arguing this with, in that case.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
ETA: My view is that if adultery is indeed considered "second only to murder" by the church, it's because it's a much more common transgression than those on the First Presidency reinstatement list. It's not that adultery is the sole #2 on the Big List of Bad Sins. It's that it's one transgression that's much more difficult to fully repent of, akin to murder. A few of those others on the First Presidency list (but certainly not all) aren't in my view as serious as adultery--see embezzlement of church funds--but are in a special class that requires First Presidency involvement in the reinstatement process, perhaps because they involve the church directly or are uncommon enough that local leaders might not know what church discipline would normally be in that case.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Anecdotal Possible Repercussions: - Assault: Minor personal injury. Major personal injury. Ranges from a black eye to a disabling event. Possible emotional trauma (PTSD). - Rape: Possible personal injury. Major personal trauma. Likely won't effect ability to generate income. - Torture: See assault. - Adultery: Possible disease transmission to 1 or more persons. Possible destruction of marriage, impacting in severe emotional trauma to one or more family units.
The emotional impact of most of these crimes is high to one individual but likely low to everyone else. The fiscal impact can vary.
The emotional impact of adultery can impact every member of multiple families. The fiscal impact can be devastating to multiple families and affect everything from general finances to retirement to college funds.
Note: I'm taking both murder and manslaughter out of the equation.
Anecdotal possible situations: (1) My daughter is raped, tortured, beaten, lands in a coma for 30 years, but thank God she doesn't die (so murder/manslaughter is out) and wakes up to live a semblance of a disabled life for the next 2 decades.
(2) My wife (or myself) commits adultery.
Clearly, situation (2) imposes a much greater emotional and financial impact on everyone in my family than situation (1) which of course only affects my daughter and has little emotional impact on anyone else with only a financial impact of the hospital bills...
seriously?!....
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I would say all of those acts would impact the entire family, not just the victim, and a victim, marriage, and a family has a better chance of healing psychologically and relationship-wise from an act of adultery than from a rape or a murder.
I'll echo BB in saying the LDS church considers adultery to be a very serious sin, given the importance the church place on marriage.
However, that doesn't mean heinous acts like rape or assault are shrugged off as any less serious and devastating than they are.
I'm going to clarify that the church treats rape, assault, and torture with the same seriousness as adultery, if not more so. That is to say, the church is likely to excommunicate members who commit any of those things depending on the circumstances surrounding the act.
Excommunication is the most severe penalty the church has. Excommunicated members are stricken from the records of the church (except for the records of their excommunication and the events surrounding it) and must be re-baptized before being allowed to act in any capacity in the church. The church does not convict anyone to damnation or everlasting punishment because we view that as something only God has authority to do. The church can only remove someone from membership and invite them to repentance and re-baptism.
Excommunicated members cannot be re-baptized until they make restitution for the acts that resulted in Excommunication. For theft, they must replace what they stole or repay the value. For rape, the church will ask the victim for permission before allowing a rapist to be baptized again. Permission from victims of violent or non-violent crimes is often a requirement for re-baptism in the church. Murder is something for which no restitution can be made in this life, and murderers are not often baptized into the church again, if ever, since forgiveness for such an act can only be granted by the dead and God. Neither of whom the church assumes to speak for in the matter of eternal judgment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A few things. First, though: if someone truly believes 'this is the way the universe is', that adultery is an atrocious transgression that in many cases is worse than things like rape, murder, or torture...well, I think it's wrong to believe that because I don't believe that's the way the universe is. Likewise in reverse on so many religious topics. But please keep in mind, anyone who may disagree with me, when j criticize that system I'm not criticizing you as though you sat at a workstation and designed it yourself, fully agreeing with all of its precepts.
Now, that said. I've yet to meet or even hear about someone who was 'emotionally destroyed' or so far as I can tell somehow eternally damaged by adultery. Even in the cases of the worst, most egregious adultery-prolonged, with a close friend, or something like that-the victim is almost certainly not going to wake from sleep ten years down the line shrieking and flailing their limbs in a night terror. They're not going to flinch and have a flashback if someone unnoticed touches them on the shoulder to get their attention. They're rarely going to have their sexuality so changed that years later they'll view children as sex objects.
If anyone claims they would rather be raped and tortured to death over a period of a week than have their spouse of many years, 'eternal' marriage or not, cheat on them...well. I'm very comfortable pointing out that such a preference is easy to profess when the choice won't actually be a real one.
Now, if we're to protect the claim by pointing out that we might be talking about the most egregious adultery and the 'mildest' torture (many years of marriage, kids, egregious adultery partner(s) vs, say, four days of sleep deprivation) then sure, there's a case to be made. You need to offer the worst of one and the least worst of the other to begin to get there, though.
Overall I think I'll just echo what Matt and Mucus have said, particularly with respect to what communities and people actually believe are the more serious, pressing transgressions. It's also possibly worth consideration that in order to find societies that actually rate adultery, whether voluntary or involuntary, as this much of a transgression often we find a lot of attached other problematic outlooks.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ETA: My view is that if adultery is indeed considered "second only to murder" by the church, it's because it's a much more common transgression than those on the First Presidency reinstatement list. It's not that adultery is the sole #2 on the Big List of Bad Sins. It's that it's one transgression that's much more difficult to fully repent of, akin to murder. A few of those others on the First Presidency list (but certainly not all) aren't in my view as serious as adultery--see embezzlement of church funds--but are in a special class that requires First Presidency involvement in the reinstatement process, perhaps because they involve the church directly or are uncommon enough that local leaders might not know what church discipline would normally be in that case.
I'm going to correct you by saying that "Sexual sin" is second to Murder. Rape is sexual sin. Adultery is sexual sin. The church typically responds to both in the same way.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'd like to point out that Aros is, I believe, the only one making that claim about adultery being worse than rape, murder, et al.
I'll hold that adultery is a serious and very damaging act (or habit or lifestyle) that can tear apart families and cause those involved in it, both guilty and innocent, years of pain, regret, and loss--even if it doesn't result in things like nightmares and emotional problems.
That doesn't mean it's more damaging, both immediately and long-term, than rape or other acts of that nature.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ETA: My view is that if adultery is indeed considered "second only to murder" by the church, it's because it's a much more common transgression than those on the First Presidency reinstatement list. It's not that adultery is the sole #2 on the Big List of Bad Sins. It's that it's one transgression that's much more difficult to fully repent of, akin to murder. A few of those others on the First Presidency list (but certainly not all) aren't in my view as serious as adultery--see embezzlement of church funds--but are in a special class that requires First Presidency involvement in the reinstatement process, perhaps because they involve the church directly or are uncommon enough that local leaders might not know what church discipline would normally be in that case.
I'm going to correct you by saying that "Sexual sin" is second to Murder. Rape is sexual sin. Adultery is sexual sin. The church typically responds to both in the same way.
I stand corrected on the wording if that's indeed the case, but I don't agree that rape would fall under the church's definition sexual sin or that the church responds to it the same way as it would adultery. Rape is a violent crime in which someone is victimized against their will. A church leader learning of a rape would be required to report it to authorities. Adultery is by definition a consensual act, not necessarily a crime (or at least not enforced, IDK) and likely not reported to authorities unless a crime beyond consensual sex was involved.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'd like to point out that Aros is, I believe, the only one making that claim about adultery being worse than rape, murder, et al.
I never said it was worse than either rape or murder. I've argued from the beginning, in fact, that murder is worse.
And most people are anecdotally using the WORST cases of the other crimes. How many torture cases involve chopping off limbs? How many rape cases involve 20 year comas. Are these the exception or the norm?
How many cases of adultery result in bankruptcy and broken homes?
My point is this. From a spiritual perspective (regardless of your religion), adultery is worse than many other crimes. Not because of the severity of the crime itself, but because of the repercussions. In these other crimes, the target is another person. It isn't implied that you care about this person or make a commitment to them. In adultery, you are fundamentally betraying your partner and your family. You are risking your health, the health of your partner, and the destruction of your family.
I'd argue that from a religious or moralistic point of view, it's a greater thing to hurt your family than it is to hurt a stranger.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: A church leader learning of a rape would be required to report it to authorities.
That's actually not the case. If a church leader reported it to the authorities, it would not be admissible in court and could not be used as reason for obtaining warrants, as acts confessed to a minister or leader of any religious organization is considered privileged information protected under the right to privacy. A church leader can only contact the authorities if someone says that they are *about* to commit a crime.
The church leadership can really only urge the person to confess to the crime to the police. The church's typical response to both rape and adultery is one of excommunication, except that with rape, it's much more likely that someone who has not been through the temple will be excommunicated, whereas excommunication of someone who commits adultery is significantly less likely if they haven't been through the temple ceremonies.
The church does not prescribe standard punishments or restitution, and leaves the decision on those matters to the discretion of a sizable grouping of local authorities. And I don't believe the First Presidency is required to be involved in the procedure during Excommunication. The First Presidency is typically only involved in excommunications for things like general apostasy and situations where the local authorities are either involved in the wrong doing or closely related to those involved, as well as those that impact the church as a whole (embezzlement, for instance).
The First Presidency is, however, usually consulted when excommunicated members are requesting readmission to the church.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'd like to point out that Aros is, I believe, the only one making that claim about adultery being worse than rape, murder, et al.
I never said it was worse than either rape or murder. I've argued from the beginning, in fact, that murder is worse.
And most people are anecdotally using the WORST cases of the other crimes. How many torture cases involve chopping off limbs? How many rape cases involve 20 year comas. Are these the exception or the norm?
How many cases of adultery result in bankruptcy and broken homes?
My point is this. From a spiritual perspective (regardless of your religion), adultery is worse than many other crimes. Not because of the severity of the crime itself, but because of the repercussions. In these other crimes, the target is another person. It isn't implied that you care about this person or make a commitment to them. In adultery, you are fundamentally betraying your partner and your family. You are risking your health, the health of your partner, and the destruction of your family.
I'd argue that from a religious or moralistic point of view, it's a greater thing to hurt your family than it is to hurt a stranger.
Aros, I'd like to simply ask, who do you think is adequately equipped to determine what act is spiritually "worse" than another? Do you think that you have enough wisdom or knowledge to make a determination like that? Because I don't think you do. You're arguing as if you have that kind of knowledge. That's part of why people are resisting your claims.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Boris,
I don't have any more -- or less right to make an argument over which is "worse" than anyone else does.
I don't care if people are resisting my "claims" or my use of "quotation marks" or anything else. I do find it humorous, however, that they can be so glib about adultery. I've known a lot more people damaged by it than by torture or "assault".
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote: The church's typical response to both rape and adultery is one of excommunication, except that with rape, it's much more likely that someone who has not been through the temple will be excommunicated, whereas excommunication of someone who commits adultery is significantly less likely if they haven't been through the temple ceremonies.
I believe you mean to say "has been" there.
quote:That's actually not the case. If a church leader reported it to the authorities, it would not be admissible in court and could not be used as reason for obtaining warrants, as acts confessed to a minister or leader of any religious organization is considered privileged information protected under the right to privacy. A church leader can only contact the authorities if someone says that they are *about* to commit a crime.
There are situations where the church leader must report to authorities. At least I'm pretty sure. Child abuse being one of them. Not sure about rape though.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote: The church's typical response to both rape and adultery is one of excommunication, except that with rape, it's much more likely that someone who has not been through the temple will be excommunicated, whereas excommunication of someone who commits adultery is significantly less likely if they haven't been through the temple ceremonies.
I believe you mean to say "has been" there.
quote:That's actually not the case. If a church leader reported it to the authorities, it would not be admissible in court and could not be used as reason for obtaining warrants, as acts confessed to a minister or leader of any religious organization is considered privileged information protected under the right to privacy. A church leader can only contact the authorities if someone says that they are *about* to commit a crime.
There are situations where the church leader must report to authorities. At least I'm pretty sure. Child abuse being one of them. Not sure about rape though.
Yes, thanks for the correction above. So hard to read on this laptop.
Edit: Actually, stiles, no. I do mean that someone who *has not been* through the temple is more likely to be excommunicated for rape. I couldn't find a very non confusing way to word that. Basically, if a member who has not been to the temple commits adultery, it very likely that the church leadership will dis-fellowship them (They will remain on the membership roles, but cannot take the sacrament, give prayers in church, or serve in leadership positions), but not excommunicate them. This is because they haven't made a covenant to avoid sexual sin. The church doesn't typically excommunicate people who haven't been through the temple for a lot of reasons. Raping someone is something that is much more likely to result in excommunication because it's also a felony, and individuals who are sentenced to prison are usually excommunicated from the church until they are done with their sentence. This means that members who have been through the temple *as well as those who haven't* are significantly more likely to be excommunicated for rape than for adultery.
Anyway, yes, there are things that church leadership has to report to authorities, but the list of things is mostly limited to knowledge of future acts or ongoing criminal acts. For instance, if someone goes to a bishop and says, "I'm going to kill so and so" and the bishop believes that they might actually do so, that bishop can be held liable for not reporting it to authorities. I think the church leadership handbook has specifics, but I haven't really read through that whole thing yet, having not actually been in a position of authority in the church.
[ March 14, 2013, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have heard from several bishops that the rule on child abuse for then is the same as it is for teachers. If you have any reason to suspect a child is being abused, report to CPS. Mandatory reporters. I am told this is laid out clearly in the bishops handbook. Reporting to CPs is not the sameas testifying in court and can even be done anonymously.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: A church leader learning of a rape would be required to report it to authorities.
That's actually not the case. If a church leader reported it to the authorities, it would not be admissible in court and could not be used as reason for obtaining warrants, as acts confessed to a minister or leader of any religious organization is considered privileged information protected under the right to privacy.
This is only true if the church leader learns of the information while acting in his or her capacity as counselor, confessor, or spiritual advisor. So if the rapist confesses to the priest/pastor/bishop it is (under most circumstances) privileged. If the victim or a witness reports it, or if the priest/pastor/bishop is an eyewitness, it is not.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I have heard from several bishops that the rule on child abuse for then is the same as it is for teachers. If you have any reason to suspect a child is being abused, report to CPS. Mandatory reporters. I am told this is laid out clearly in the bishops handbook. Reporting to CPs is not the sameas testifying in court and can even be done anonymously.
Yep, I was a mandatory reporter. I recall reporting at least two cases my boss refused to report- illegally. Many years ago.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'd argue that from a religious or moralistic point of view, it's a greater thing to hurt your family than it is to hurt a stranger.
I would say that, from a religious or moralistic point of view - at least from a Christian point of view - that this is completely wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Does "privileged" mean that the courts can't use the information or does it mean that the court can't compel the information?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
There is a state to state difference though as some states explicitly forbid reporting even child abuse if the abuser is the one who confesses.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Does "privileged" mean that the courts can't use the information or does it mean that the court can't compel the information?
Privileged generally means that if the information comes from a privileged source that: 1. It is not admissible as evidence in court. 2. Any evidence directly gained as a result of privileged information is also inadmissible.
The general idea is that individuals confessing illegal acts to clergy have a reasonable expectation that their confessions will remain private. Many churches impose stiff penalties against clergy who violate this, particularly churches that view confession as a central tenant.
I do believe that clergy can provide anonymous information that leads a police investigation to evidence of a crime and remain admissible as evidence, but I think that depends heavily on state law. However, anonymous tips cannot be used as a sole evidence in court without the tip provider being compelled to testify in court (which usually results in the tip provider never really being anonymous), due to the defendant's right to face their accuser. So it's kind of a sticky area. A skilled lawyer could probably have a field day with some of those situations.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
There is a state to state difference though as some states explicitly forbid reporting even child abuse if the abuser is the one who confesses.
I think that situation with the Bishop is a unique one, where the victim actually came to the bishop, rather than the abuser. In such a situation, the Bishop most definitely should have reported the incident to the police and instructed the girl to do so as well. If a victim discloses to clergy, clergy have a responsibility to involve authorities. If an abuser does so, constitutional law will often prohibit them from being able to do so legally.
Edit to add: I should also note that I'm not a lawyer...so don't take it from me. I've just been digging in a lot of law stuff lately and watching *way* too much Law and Order on Netflix. Some religious organizations have stiff penalties for clergy who break confessional privacy. I don't think the LDS church does, but I do believe the church can be civilly liable for damages if a bishop or other leader does so.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: If an abuser does so, constitutional law will often prohibit them from being able to do so legally.
I believe you have this a little backwards. The priest is protected from being forced to testify against the abuser (and what an abuser says may be inadmissible in the court of law), but the law does not prohibit the priest from telling others what he has been told in confidence. It does not protect the criminal, it protects the priest, and the integrity of the church's internal rules.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: If an abuser does so, constitutional law will often prohibit them from being able to do so legally.
I believe you have this a little backwards. The priest is protected from being forced to testify against the abuser (and what an abuser says may be inadmissible in the court of law), but the law does not prohibit the priest from telling others what he has been told in confidence. It does not protect the criminal, it protects the priest, and the integrity of the church's internal rules.
I miswrote with this:
quote: If an abuser does so, constitutional law will often prohibit them from being able to do so legally.
It's not illegal for clergy to reveal information from a confessional environment. It is, however, not possible to use that type of confession in court, and defense lawyers would likely have means to disqualify evidence obtained as a result of such a disclosure. Of course, circumstances allowing disclosure exist, but they are limited by state law.
Also, while a priest could conceivably disclose confessions to a third party, that third party could also not testify in court due to hearsay laws.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Not in all cases- there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. Point is- priests are perfectly able, legally, to warn the authorities that someone is being abused. Police can investigate the matter themselves. The church decides not to do so- for many reasons.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
So are you saying that church leaders can report any crime (or is this only the case with abuse?) but they aren't legally required to do so? And that their testimony will hold up in court?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'd argue that from a religious or moralistic point of view, it's a greater thing to hurt your family than it is to hurt a stranger.
I would say that, from a religious or moralistic point of view - at least from a Christian point of view - that this is completely wrong.
I would have hoped that at least the ideal would be the latter. The former sounds incredibly selfish, especially in the context of what we were discussing. (i.e. It being more excusable for your spouse to commit one of the crimes that we were discussing than for them to commit adultery)
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For rape, assault, manslaughter, I had in mind acts that would be reasonably tried and convicted under the Canadian Criminal Code. For torture, I had in mind norms from international law, like the UN Convention on torture.
How about if your community had $1000 to spend on education and could either use that to either eliminate one case of manslaughter that happens in your community per year or eliminate one case of adultery, which would you pick?
Manslaughter should generally be grouped with murder, making it worse than adultery. Let's drop this one.
Conversation has moved on, but I have to note that manslaughter is in fact distinct from murder
quote:Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.
So for example, if it be worse for a person to kill someone while drunk driving or to commit adultery.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: So are you saying that church leaders can report any crime (or is this only the case with abuse?) but they aren't legally required to do so? And that their testimony will hold up in court?
No, not really. Church leaders *can* legally report crimes confessed to (and must report conspiracies or confessions of a crime to be committed), but it is not likely this confession can directly contribute to a conviction. However, the paradigm of clergy not revealing crimes to police is internal to the church- it is not a legal requirement. The legal privilege extends to the confessor and the person being confessed to, that the information cannot be used, nor required to be revealed.
However there are exceptions. For example, if the clergyman were to share the confession as a dying declaration. But still, it is likely that the expectation of confidentiality precludes that being usd as evidence.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)