posted
There are some interesting responses in the comments at this site, including from a former coach of a rival high school team and a former student who identifies himself in a photo.
quote: And the above photo is not West Ridge Academy. Why post that? It gives a negative impression, and it's not even accurate. No student at West Ridge has ever worn uniforms like that or are required to shave their heads. ... As a high school basketball coach, I coached against West Ridge and also coached several of their boys in All Star games. As a filmmaker I did a documentary about high school basketball. That film had a segment devoted to West Ridge and its mission. I also produced a DVD on their girls program. I know several of the staff personally, and know several of the young men and women that have been in the program. Although they do implement spiritual growth, it is not devoted to Mormonism. Many kids in Utah are Mormon and therefore bring Mormonism with them. Other denominations are encouraged to worship as they please. ... While I filmed segments for both my documentary and the girls program DVD, I was able to associate with staff, students, and parents without restriction. I freely roamed the halls, talked with students, sat in classes, witnessed programs in action. Nearly all students seemed to be positive and most were actively involved with Basketball, baseball, and soccer teams. Others were involved in mountain climbing, skiing, etc. The school is much like any other private school. They are constantly hosting other schools for sporting events and the campus has visitors coming and going all day. In fact some kids enroll at the school without having issues. It is NOT a "dark camp that tortures innocent kids." It's a beautiful open campus, with nice homes and live in host parents. ...
That is anecdote, of course, but at this point all of this is anecdote.
There may well be problems there, and that should be taken seriously. I don't think using unconnected photos of children with shaved heads in uniform or using unnecessarily purple prose helps anybody's case, be it an official critique website or a side commentor. It just makes it look as if the story itself could not stand on its own.
I do hope any claims of abuse are promptly investigated by whomever the proper authorities are for that area.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Still, there are things that, while legal, are still sufficiently unsavory that a church wouldn't want to associate itself with them or support them.
ETA: This may or may not be one of those things. It would be good for all groups that support it (not just the Church of LDS) to investigate.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, do you think there is a difference between supporting the kids at an institution and supporting the instution? In other words, do you think there should be no chaplains at a prison if there are allegations of misconduct against the prison guards?
The biggest leap I see here is that an unsupported anecdote is being treated as true. Like CT said, it is all anecdote.
I am still unclear about the expectations for the church's role in this. The part about expecting the church to make public the results of ecclesiastical investigations of misconduct when there has been no criminal charges filed, much less, proven, is especially weird to me. It seems like it would do a great deal of harm to make a practice of making public those kinds of private investigations. Can you imagine the dampening effect on people going to the church for help if they knew it meant going on the news as well?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prisons are regulated by the state and have certain rules about conduct. If these rules are broken - or even if the rules are too harsh, I would expect the chaplains to be the first people to blow the whistle.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You think that chaplains should have a greater say and judgment over how prisons and private businesses are run than the government or the owners?
I am referring to the "rulles are too harsh" part of your post.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm kind of wondering how a kid could possibly get out of this place if they genuinely didn't like it. I think I was capable at at least grade 4 to make a good assessment of whether such a place would be good for me.
Typically, kids that are in these types of institutions are not likely to be able to objectively assess whether or not the treatment programs that certified psychiatrists put them on are good for them.
Your typical fourth grader doesn't even realize that SCHOOL is good for them, and would likely leave it if given the consequence-free opportunity.
quote: pretty much the whole concept of religiously segregated schools is vaguely disturbing to me.
Interesting terminology. I'm viewing this as a private juvenile delinquency center; you seem to be think of it as a religious school of some sort. I don't think your view is the correct one, and I'd like to understand why you choose to give weight to those facets of it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am honestly puzzled about the expectations for the church's role in this. If something is not important enough to call the police about, I do not understand why it should important enough for the church to comment on.
Stop. Think.
Churches should not be concerned about things that don't merit criminal investigation?
Seriously?
katharina, the church is NOT responsible for how this thing runs. However, Buttars and others point up their church membership and the religious aspects of the indoctrination that happens at this camp. They have created an association, more or less explicit, between their activities and their church.
It would be a VERY GOOD IDEA for the church to either a) make sure that association is not to the church's detriment or b) try to end the association.
If they aren't doing either, they aren't doing what they OUGHT to be doing.
I haven't seen you provide evidence of them doing (a), all I have seen you do is say they don't have any responsibility. Legally, probably very true. Ethically, absolutely not.
If someone is selling this place as rehabilitation for Mormon kids (they absolutely are), and the church knows about that (they absolutely do), they have a moral duty to ensure the kids are being treated well OR to publicly disapprove and dis-associate.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not quite sure why you think that prison chaplains are a comparable situation. We have to have prisons to house criminals. People don't get to choose to send their children there or not.
Nevertheless, if a prison was particularly harsh, I would hope that the chaplains would refrain from writing testimonials about how great the prison was or otherwise endorsing the prison. I would hope that (since removing funding and support for the prison is not an option as it would be with the academy) that chaplains would make public their criticisms and bring problems to the attention of the public.
A more apt, I think, comparison would be with other church sponsored charities. If for example, there were allegations of abuse going on in the Horizons for Youth program, I would expect my parish and the archdiocese to investigate it and, should the allegations prove true, cut off funding and repudiate the program.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You think that chaplains should have a greater say and judgment over how prisons and private businesses are run than the government or the owners?
I think they have a greater moral responsibility to speak out on these matters. Not everything that is wrong is illegal.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be a VERY GOOD IDEA for the church to either a) make sure that association is not to the church's detriment or b) try to end the association.
If they aren't doing either, they aren't doing what they OUGHT to be doing.
This.
quote:If someone is selling this place as rehabilitation for Mormon kids, and the church knows about that, and they do, they have a moral duty to ensure the kids are being treated well OR to publicly disapprove and dis-associate.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Prisons are regulated by the state and have certain rules about conduct. If these rules are broken - or even if the rules are too harsh, I would expect the chaplains to be the first people to blow the whistle.
I agree. As a lowly psychiatric technician (kind of like an orderly), I got training on recognizing abuse, and how and to whom to report it. I'm pretty sure most bishops and branch presidents receive this training as well.
I would expect that this place receives some sort of accreditation from the state; if it's accredited, I can almost guarantee that they have to have some documentation laying out how they train their employees.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like the point of this thread, given that there are no calls for police action, the other churches involved aren't mentioned, and the supporting material is the purplest of prose, is to malign the church.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I would expect that this place receives some sort of accreditation from the state; if it's accredited, I can almost guarantee that they have to have some documentation laying out how they train their employees.
From what I read, it is state-licensed as West Ridge Academy.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
You mention things that are legal but unethical that might be occurring at Westridge. Were you thinking of any specific examples?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Your typical fourth grader doesn't even realize that SCHOOL is good for them, and would likely leave it if given the consequence-free opportunity.
Yeah, but who said I was typical? Chinese parents, cultural gap. Seriously.
quote:Interesting terminology. I'm viewing this as a private juvenile delinquency center; you seem to be think of it as a religious school of some sort. I don't think your view is the correct one, and I'd like to understand why you choose to give weight to those facets of it.
I view it as a religious school first, which happens to be a delinquency centre too. My view is derived straight from the pro-ranch article:
quote: The Boys Ranch refuses to accept any state or federal funding because of laws that would prohibit the program's basic foundation of teaching religious and spiritual values hand-in-hand with traditional academics.
Buttars makes no excuses. Boys coming into the program must consult with their parents and declare some Christian religion so religious counselors can be assigned along with professional staff.
"Our entire focus is to put these kids in touch with their spiritual foundations and help them learn to manage and control their concerns in such a way that life works for them, for their family and for society," he said.
"Anything less is unacceptable," the director added. "We strongly believe that, in the absence of such a foundation, a boy will fail."
...
Buttars admits the religious orientation of the program is sometimes controversial. But if a boy or his parents cannot accept the religious and values instruction that comes with the Boys Ranch turf, they simply are referred to other early intervention programs.
So not only is religion viewed as a basic foundation, but its necessary otherwise the kid is kicked out (although I must wonder how that jives with those previous instructions to basically never take a kid home, can't the kids just say they're not religious?). And not only must it be religion, but it has to be Christian religion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
You mention things that are legal but unethical that might be occurring at Westridge. Were you thinking of any specific examples?
No. I am saying that there are allegations of things that may be unethical but possibly still legal. I think that any groups that support the academy in any significant way should look into it and either (depending on what they find) stop its association or refute the allegations.
Learn from our mistakes. The Magdalen Laundries are an enduring shame for us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw this ... testimonial? whatever you would call it... first linked at DailyKos a while back. I believe I commented aloud that it's a candidate for the Eye awards, as well . (I'm aware that mentioning DailyKos reveals my leftiness.)
I cannot imagine this school being useful for any of the mentally ill teens I know. The top criteria on the admissions criteria is bipolar? Followed by ODD. You have to buy into the idea that bipolar is a "behavioral problem" first in order to go with a school like this.
I realize this is not the point of the thread, but I'm appalled enough to complain anyway. As I'm known to say twice a day: parenting doesn't cause bipolar disorder; parenting can't cure bipolar disorder.
quote:So not only is religion viewed as a basic foundation, but its necessary otherwise the kid is kicked out (although I must wonder how that jives with those previous instructions to basically never take a kid home, can't the kids just say they're not religious?). And not only must it be religion, but it has to be Christian religion.
Hm...while I think that religion is weighted, and important, I still don't see this as a religious school primarily.
In regards to the above quote: my understanding is that the child and parents who don't commit to the religious aspect are simply not allowed to enroll.
That's what the "coming into" means in this sentence:
quote:Boys coming into the program must consult with their parents and declare some Christian religion so religious counselors can be assigned along with professional staff.
posted
Edited to add: There have been lots of post while I was writing this, that I have not read. Normal caveats apply.
Here's a situation, and I'm not saying it's the actual case or not, but one in which I would expect the church to be the appropriate people to question rather than the police. Just as a hypothetical.
Let's say the blog accounts are exaggerated. Nobody is getting the snot beat out of them, but the tactics being used do include humiliation and some level of physical punishment. Shoving into walls and using pressure points to control unruly kids, say. Combined with drill sergent like yelling, and not being allowed pants. Definitely scary to a 15 year old yanked out of his family, questionable as to if it's abuse or not.
The kids are there under the authority of their parents, because their parents want them to be. Some of them might be genuine discipline problems, involved in gangs, uncontrollable at home. Some of them might be normal teenage rebellion. Some of them might be like the kid in the story, who at 15 isn't really feeling the family religion, is okay with going along to church and some activities but doesn't want to go to the 6 am before school classes. He's probably not expressing his disagreement well. He's living with his mother and his stepfather, and there's probably some authority issues. At the least, he's probably acting pretty snotty towards his stepfather.
His parents are within their rights to send him to military school to get him to "straighten up." They understand the school is going to be tough on him, they want the school to be tough on him. How tough, exactly? Well. . . that's hard to say. Tough enough to get him to straighten up. Certainly not tough enough to cross to the level of abuse. No permenant damage, definitely. But enough to scare him straight? Yes.
So the school's walking a fine line. Maybe with some kids who seem to have a chip on their shoulder, they're a little tougher than with others. Most of what they do is probably legal, and it's also sanctioned by the parents. Maybe the cross the line occasionally, but not systematically, and not enough that CPS is going to be able to make a successful case that they should be shut down.
But most of the kids sent there are from LDS families. (Remember, we're still on a hypothetical.) A good percentage are sent because part of their teenage rebellion is manifesting as not wanting to go to church, or at least not as much as their parents want them to. Another chunk, maybe not as many but still a good sized group, is sent because they're exhibiting signs of homosexuality, or have come out and said they think they're gay. In both cases, their parents want them to grow up as good Mormons, and despair of it happening unless they take drastic measures. So they send them to this camp.
I don't believe that the camp is likely effective in those situations. It might be effective for true hard cases, involved in gangs or drugs, who could turn around in a highly structured environment. For kids who are gay, it's probably just going to increase their later pyschiatrist bills. For kids who are basically decent but going through a rough spot, it's probably going to alienate them from their family. That's my opinion.
Can't stop the family from sending them their, people are allowed to make stupid choices about their own kids as long as it doesn't put them in serious physical danger. Can't call the police on them, because what they're doing isn't illegal.
But, but, there's this other entity involved. Maybe not officially involved, the church certainly doesn't run the camp or directly support it. But the camp is run by members of the church, in some cases highly placed members. Most of the kids there come from families of members. Part of the reason they are there is that their families don't think they're living up to church teachings. Part of their rehabilitation includes reading the church's religious text. Missionaries from the church are there regularly to try to lead the kids on the right path. Official religious classes are part of the ciriculum, taught by church employees. Representatives of other religions are allowed in, if there are members of that faith there, but it doesn't really come up very often. Kids are made to memorize and paraphrase part of the church's religious text in order to be moved from the strictest status to a more leiniant one.
In that case, for someone who believes the camp goes too far, and that a lot of the things it does are directly contradictory to the church's teachings about family and free will, it seems reasonable to ask why the church doesn't check it out, and if necessary make a public statement that they do not support the camp's tactics. In fact, it seems incredible that the church wouldn't want to do that. It certainly looks like the camp is acting in the church's name, and representing itself as a way to bring your kids back to the church. If a normal member of the church, looking at the information available about the camp, would find it's actions troubling and want to know more, why wouldn't the church want to distance itself from the camp? To make a public statement that the camp is not church supported? That, I think, is the sort of thing that people are looking for. Not necessarily a church investigation, although if my hypothetical summation of what the camp was like is true, I would hope that the church wouldn't support it's methods and would perhaps say that, to make it clear to it's members that this isn't how the church encourages dealing with troubled teenagers.
Does that make more sense, as why people might expect the church to say something about the camp?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I am not seeing anything. I am not there. I don't know if the allegations are true or not. That is why they should investigate - to see if they are true.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apart from the specific aspects of this particular camp, it seems to me that a church which claims widespread inspiration - divine testimony and priesthood for every member - has a particularly strong need to disassociate itself from this sort of thing, even if the church as such is not involved. Because if members and priests, claimed to be in touch with their god, are abusing children - again, I am considering a hypothetical, not this specific case - then what is the use of their 'guidance'? The only possible explanation (if you accept the guidance thing in the first place, of course) would be that these members are not in true communion, and the church would need to make that quite clear, or its entire theory of divine guidance falls apart.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems like the point of this thread, given that there are no calls for police action, the other churches involved aren't mentioned, and the supporting material is the purplest of prose, is to malign the church.
Well, you're certainly reacting that way, but I don't see any indications that you're right.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. But I submit that reading this as an attack on the church rather than concern for the children involved is remarkably uncharitable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. I'm not saying that you, personally, are uncharitable. I'm saying that accusing the people posting in this thread of desiring to malign the LDS church when there are considerably more rational -- and charitable -- interpretations of their behavior available is not something that I would consider a charitable behavior.
If what I consider charitable isn't relevant to you, of course, that's your own lookout. But you might wonder why you care whether people want to malign the church or not, if opinions are so irrelevant. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might want to consider why are you are so quick to assume the worst about the church.
I have encountered this before. I had an ex-boyfriend who got very upset because I always gave the church the benefit of the doubt. It makes sense, though - through years of being in and working with the church, I have had nothing but very positive experiences while working with church leadership and church programs. Sheer experience leads me to give the church the benefit of the doubt in this situation. Considering there is nothing here but unsubstantiated allegations and hints at impropriety, I see know reason to change the policy.
I wonder if there are only hints at impropriety because definite accusations have been or would be proven to be unfounded.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, for the record, Scott, I consider it unethical to kidnap a child and bring him to a camp of this sort, even with the permission of his parents.
I have nothing but scorn and pity for parents who've made this choice; pity, because I know they must have felt like they had no other option -- and scorn, because I know they were wrong and did great evil as a result.
----------
quote:You might want to consider why are you are so quick to assume the worst about the church.
I'm not assuming the worst. What I'm assuming is that about 50% of the excesses described and photographed in this blog are legit, a percentage I'm willing to credit due to my intense dislike of Senator Buttars; and that the involvement of the church is roughly as described: on-site missionary programs coupled with off-site teaching.
In this scenario, it is difficult for me to imagine that the on-site missionaries in particular are unaware of the abuses happening. But I agree that it's certainly more important to get the secular authorities involved. I'm just skeptical that this is an easy thing to do in Utah.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You think that chaplains should have a greater say and judgment over how prisons and private businesses are run than the government or the owners?
I am referring to the "rulles are too harsh" part of your post.
And yet, the Church has no qualms about stepping in to tell an entire state who it should allow to get married.
Do you think the church should have a greater say and judgment over how private people run their lives than the government or the people themselves?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love my Church - which is why I almost never give it the benefit of the doubt on stuff like this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just skeptical that this is an easy thing to do in Utah.
I know that you are. Considering you've already described GOP members as "evil", you're not a reliable source.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
May I be permitted a very tiny eye-roll, here?
--------
Specifically, I am skeptical that a camp with intimate ties to both state political leaders and a church leadership that dominates state politics will be fairly investigated without a great deal of public outcry.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:a church leadership that dominates state politics
What is the basis for this assumption? It isn't true. Church leadership does not pull the strings of state politics, and the church office building is constantly sending polite reminders to state legislators that try to pretend they have church backing for their proposals to knock it off.
Like most of the other accusations against the church in this thread, it assumes a great deal more power and authority over secular affairs on the part of the church than actually exist.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that any of the posters here are saying that the alleged badness of this academy is because of some badness in your church. Or that such a thing is unique to LDS culture.
I certainly am not. In fact the reason that I am being particularly adamant about this is because of similar problems (see the aforementioned Magdalen Laundries) and similar attitudes ("The Church wouldn't be involved in anything wrong") in my own church. We were wrong. It is easy for such places to get out of control - especially with children and adolescents. Extra vigilance and transparency is important.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure I can feel both pity and scorn at once for desperate parents, though. Parents of some of these kids have terrible options available to them. Programs like these are NOT the answer; I'm 100 percent convinced of this. But there are not a lot of alternatives, either, for families with unstable children. The parents are blamed and vilified. The children are blamed and vilified. Insurance covers very little. I'm not sure I can adequately describe how desperate parents in this situation can be.
I'll save my scorn for the folks who run programs like these (usual caveats about accepting for the sake of argument that it's even partly accurately described).
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:the church office building is constantly sending polite reminders to state legislators that try to pretend they have church backing for their proposals to knock it off
That is, I think, evidence against your claim. If legislators feel the need to pretend that their proposals are backed by the church, presumably they do so because the church is more popular than the legislature.
It's also a good argument for why the church might want to send polite reminders to this camp.
---------
quote:I'm not sure I can feel both pity and scorn at once for desperate parents, though.
I have to admit, I oscillate. My emotions are both waves and particles. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It seems like the point of this thread, given that there are no calls for police action, the other churches involved aren't mentioned, and the supporting material is the purplest of prose, is to malign the church.
Again you are wrong, and again it is expected only based on the degree to which you have reliably mischaracterized me.
quote:a church leadership that dominates state politics
What is the basis for this assumption? It isn't true. Church leadership does not pull the strings of state politics, and the church office building is constantly sending polite reminders to state legislators that try to pretend they have church backing for their proposals to knock it off.
Like most of the other accusations against the church in this thread, it assumes a great deal more power and authority over secular affairs on the part of the church than actually exist.
The church may not be actively "pulling the strings", but I'm going to point out that Tom was not wrong: the church definitely dominates Utah politics. Not through official decree, and not necessarily through behind the scenes manipulation (though I'd be completely unsurprised if legislators get specific guidance from ecclesiastical authorities), but by the pure fact that its members dominate the legislature by a large margin. That's just true.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course the church is more popular than the legislature. EVERYTHING is more popular than a legislature. Congress has an approval rating in the single digits.
Using people's religion as a manipulative tool is hardly new. It happens everywhere, including Hatrack when someone uses the religion of the person they are speaking to try to change their minds. That it happens doesn't make the religion itself responsible for it.
quote:and not necessarily through behind the scenes manipulation (though I'd be completely unsurprised if legislators get specific guidance from ecclesiastical authorities),
This is something that the church is not casual about. I don't know the history of it, but I do know that there are strict lines drawn now. The church does not have "their people" in the state government. For one thing, it would put all the crap that can happen because of government actions (like this) on the church's doorstep. No thank you.
Many members of the legislature are also members of the Church. That is not the same thing as Church leadership being responsible for actions by the state government.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: Sam - the only thing mentioned in the talk by Pres. Hinckley is that he received a bulletin from the Utah Boys Ranch. Of course anything they send out is going to be positive for them. IF abuses are occuring and the LDS church prophet and apostles found about it they would withdraw any support they might be giving. Local leadership is never perfect and I have known local leaders that have done horrible things before being removed from leadership. I can think of a few other religious organizations whose leaders did atrocious things as well. Just because their members are not perfect does not mean the organizations are bad.
To reiterate — and you'll find this emphasized by me earlier in this thread — I agree with the assertion by even the author of this story that any condoning and assistance towards the operation of this camp provided by the church is most likely just as a result of them not knowing the reality of what went on within the walls of the ranch, versus a short-copy provided by the ranch operators and Senator Buttars. What is known is that the ranch can't really operate with the open disapproval of the church.
This isn't even very accusatory, though. I still assume that it's very likely that the church will take a look at this story, look into the ranch, and stand up against the methods used, if this story gets any real press.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you don't mean running the government, what do you mean by "dominating politics"? Do you mean that church leaders express preferences and things happen? Do you mean that what the church probably thinks is usually part of the equation for most legislators?
"Dominating politics" is so general and vague a statement that it would be better to be more specific, otherwise the meaning is unclear.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also disagree with the whole basis of such a camp/school. The kids should never be sent there against their will, and what is being alleged to take place there should not be done. There is no good that can come of it. I can see the thinking behind it, but it is wrong thinking. The parents who make use of this are doing their kids no favors.
I don't like the idea of Church teachings and scripture being shoved down their throats, either, even if this is just the perception. While a Church presence in the form of missionaries and seminary classes is a good thing in most circumstances, IMO, there is definitely the chance for associations to be made here that are completely counter to the benefits of the teachings. Some program originally well-meant could very well have gotten out of hand, with parents giving up on helping their kids and turning to some strong arm to keep them in the Church. I sincerely hope the kids aren't being forced to meet with the missionaries as part of their breaking and retraining. I would not like to see missionaries and good seminary programs get sucked into that.
Like kat, I have grown up in the LDS Church. I have been involved in some levels of local Church leadership and have seen what goes on at the local level to a fair extent. A lot of good is done on a daily basis--a lot of it. Coercion and abuse go completely counter to how the Church works and how local leaders are instructed and guided to act. Any sort of abuse of power and authority is condemned. I would also like to see the Church take any steps it can to correct whatever is being done wrong here, especially in terms of involvement of missionaries and seminary. I do trust that this will happen, if it needs to happen.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Do you mean that church leaders express preferences and things happen? Do you mean that what the church probably thinks is usually part of the equation for most legislators?"
Yes on both.
Here's an excerpt since you can't follow the link:
quote: During a lunch meeting at the church headquarters, church leaders told legislative leaders they like the idea of electronic verification, said House Speaker Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara. Senate Majority Leader Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse, confirmed that leaders favored the idea, but it was not specifically discussed in lieu of private clubs.
Senate President Michael Waddoups said the church's primary concerns were similar to his: limiting underage drinking, alleviating over-consumption and stopping drunken driving. Waddoups said he asked about the potential for the electronic identification checks.
"They were receptive to that idea and wanted to encourage us to keep looking in that direction," said Waddoups. "I don't know if that goes all the way to solve the issue" but the senator said he plans to keep exploring the possibility."
Clark said his interpretation was that private clubs would not be an issue for the church if it felt that scanning the licenses addressed its concerns about underage drinking.
This is traditional in Utah: legislators meeting with church leaders to get their take on legislation - to the degree of asking what they think of specific mechanisms of rule enforcement. The influence could not be less ambiguous.
I'll quit beating this dead derail now. I think the discussion was about how the church ought to react when an enterprise exploits its tacit approval and then is alleged to do bad things, and at best doesn't seem to employ methods that are at all consistent with the church's teachings.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Coercion and abuse go completely counter to how the Church works
I must note, if the allegations about this camp are true, then your statement is false. "How the church works" is a statement about facts, to be checked against reality; if the church does in fact use abuse and coercion, then these are not counter to how it works. You probably intended to put an 'ought to' somewhere in your statement.
It remains to be seen whether this camp is a counterexample, of course.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many members of the legislature are also members of the Church. That is not the same thing as Church leadership being responsible for actions by the state government.
Not generally, but in the case of the LDS church I would have to disagree. As I've pointed out repeatedly, if you are going to say that everyone has a testimony and a direct divine guidance, then the consequence is that your religion and church actually is responsible for the actions of its members. If it disagrees with them, it must make it clear that they are not acting in accordance with its teachings, or else be assumed complicit. You can't say, on the one hand, "He has the guidance of the Holy Spirit", and on the other "His religion had nothing to do with that particular action".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, your post is illogical because the camp is neither church owned nor church run, so it isn't "the Church".
If your point is that church members can do sinful things, then...yes. Of course. Naturally. That's the whole point - if they didn't, there wouldn't be a need for church. Church is not a museum of perfect people - it's a hospital for people trying to become better. That means some are not as good as they should be. All, in fact.
If church membership was limited to people who never did anything wrong and always did what Heavenly Father wanted them to, it would be an organization of one.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If church membership was limited to people who never did anything wrong, it would be an organization of one."
I know what you mean, but I also like this because it suggests the only way to avoid doing something wrong is to be alone in the universe. And I think that's true.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. (I'm aware that mentioning DailyKos reveals my leftiness.)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
