This is basically Tranquility Bay II, with a wing for 'curing' homosexuality. And it's essentially tied to the LDS, which increases the explosive controversy factor of story exposure by a million.
I'm reluctant to even post it here but I figure you guys might want to ground-floor this issue in case it takes off.
quote:His filthy digit tasted like rust and fish. "I can hurt you without leaving any marks," Brent growled as I writhed in agony on the ground. I struggled for breath as he mounted my back, put his finger in my mouth, and pulled back on my cheek, fish-hooking me. The pain was incredible. I tried to beg him to stop, but the words would not come.
After he finished beating and bludgeoning submissiveness into me, he pulled me up by the rope that was lassoed around my waist. The wool army blanket I had fashioned as a skirt had shifted askew and I stood there in my boxers bleeding from my nose, humiliated.
My green Utah Boys Ranch t-shirt had been ridiculously stretched out and looked more like a low cut blouse. I loosened the noose around my waist and pulled the itchy blanket through the loop and folded it over so it looked like a brown bath towel secured by a belt. He wasn't satisfied, he wanted more. I just wanted out of this classroom. I started to think about how I got here.
The Utah Boys Ranch appears to be a kind of tough-love school with a Christian-esque undertow. My parents thought as much when they employed its services in hopes of corralling their spiritually wayward son.
Being kidnapped was probably the last thing I was worried about at 15 years old. I was staying at my grandma's house that fateful night. My step-dad and I had been at war since I had refused to go to seminary, a church service for Mormon kids in high school that began at the ungodly hour of six in the morning.
I loathed early morning seminary more than the three hours of my Sunday regular LDS church service consumed, or the three hours on Wednesday nights. My opposition, paired with my step-dad's religious fanaticism, resulted in being grounded almost to the point of indentured servitude. Grandma's house was my sanctuary. Ironically, when I looked up at the clock that next morning - as two imposing silhouettes entered the house my mom grew up in - it was five minutes to 6 a.m. on Valentine's Day.
I was camped out on the sofa bed in the TV room with a plate of leftover lasagna from the fridge. It was half eaten and a Roseanne re-run was playing when they first walked in. They looked around as if they had been told where to go, but hadn't quite envisioned it right. They looked to their left, saw the terrified eyes of a 15-year-old, and pounced. They shoved clothes and shoes on me and I was gone before I was able to think about which way I should run. They told me very little. Their first names were Paul and Barry.
Barry was a white guy, a big mother. At least 6'5", and I would not be surprised to hear that he weighed more than 300 pounds, but he was not fat. Paul was shorter and had a darker complexion. He was big too, and meaner than Barry. He turned to me when we first got into their white mid-sized rental car and said, "You have a choice. You can be cool and get on an airplane with us and be there in a couple of hours, or you can sit back there with handcuffs on for the next 12 hours.
Non-stop."
"Where are we going," I asked, still in shock.
"Utah," Barry answered casually from the passenger seat, without turning his head. "We are from the Utah Boys Ranch, Eric, and your parents have asked us to take you back with us."
"What?" My head was spinning. I felt like I was going to throw up. There is no way that this was happening. My mom would never allow this. Utah? What the hell is a Boys Ranch? I couldn't breathe.
"I guess we're driving," Paul said odiously.
I knew the child-lock would be on and as I saw the familiar houses of my grandmother's street pass by, I started to roll down the window. We weren't going fast enough for them to notice yet and the warm Agoura Hills climate didn't tip them off. I rolled it down enough to fit my arm out and open the door from the outside when Paul paused at the stop sign at the bottom of the hill, looked back at me, and stopped the car.
He shoved the gear into park and pulled handcuffs out of somewhere and told me to give him my wrists. I sat there cuffed for a moment when I realized that I really would die from this feeling in my chest - a physical manifestation of angst. My heart was beating furiously, and I knew that I couldn't last 12 hours.
"You can take me on a plane. I'll be cool."
"Now that's more like it," Barry said kindly. "My wife will be happy."
The first person I met in Utah was Senator Chris Buttars. I had no idea who he was until that point.
All I knew was that he was to be feared, and I was scared to death of him from the moment I first saw him.
"Sit down," he squawked in a loud, high pitched, galling voice that sounded like a cross between a buzzard and an old cowboy. He continued to make it very clear that I was at his mercy. He told me who he was - politically - and the influence he had. If I ever wanted to leave I was to do what he said. "How old are you?"
"Fifteen," I mumbled.
"Three years might not be enough for you. I can have a judge order you to be here until you are 21," he croaked. With that he sent me off to be "changed and put on work crew."
I was led down a long hall of doors with nameplates. I had no clue what kind of place this was. I didn't see any cows or horses...no sign of what I thought a "ranch" would resemble. Paul took me into a small room that was no bigger than a broom closet, which was stacked to the ceiling with three colors of cloth, blue, green and brown. There were green t-shirts, blue t-shirts, and blue jeans.
There were also brown army wool blankets, and I remember thinking that I didn't want to sleep under such a coarse covering before I was told to "put it on." I was told to wrap a thick, itchy blanket around my waist like a towel and wear it like a dress.
I was then given a "leash" made of climbing rope and what I think was a square knot to tie around my waist.
I had never imagined being tethered and walked like a dog, but here I was, being walked like a dog towards a cluster of about 12 other boys. They were lined up facing a wall while two large men in red sweatshirts watched them from a couple of chairs off to the side.
Some of the boys had camouflage pants on, a few others wore dresses. I wondered how long I was to be in this blanket dress. I was later told that it was so I wouldn't run away - and they were right - I literally could not run in this humiliating getup. I could barely get a full stride walking.
That's when I saw Brent - or 'Captain America,' as he was called disparagingly - for the first time. My leash was handed off to him, but he told me to wrap it around my waist and go join the group of young men who were standing with their noses touching the wall, all spread out about arms length from each other.
I turned to the boy who was standing to my right and asked him how long he had been here, but before I could get my question all the way out, my forehead careened into the carpeted wall in front of me. A sharp pain stabbed the back of my head, and suddenly bad breath filled my nostrils. "Are you talking on my work crew, boy?" a red-shirted man screamed at me.
My head was ringing. I was still trying to piece together what had just happened when I looked behind me and massaged the pain in my head. Suddenly my legs fell out from underneath me and I was on my back.
He had just slammed my forehead into the wall, and now he had put his foot behind mine and pushed me, sending me to the floor flat on my back.
He stood over me and bawled, "Don't look at me. Don't look around. Don't you MOVE without permission! You don't do anything without permission! If you talk, I think you are talking about running away, and I will restrain you. Do you understand?" I nodded. I knew then that I had to get out of this place. I wasn't going to last here.
It was only my second week on work crew when Neil Westwood refused to turn his back to Brent and place his nose on the wall, which is what the command "face the wall" plainly meant. It was a Mexican standoff for a few moments. Stunningly it seemed like Brent was going to let Neil get his way. I had never seen an older boy in a pissing contest with a staff member before. The younger kids refused commands, but they were always quickly thumped into docility.
Neil was a big kid, a lot bigger than me - probably 230 pounds or so, and over six-feet tall, but dispelled any image of toughness with his glasses, disproportionately small arms, and frizzy hairdo. Neil was as obnoxious as he was an easy target, but I still can't believe that no one reacted when Brent stood up in a flash of rage and chucked a full, unopened gallon of milk at Neil's face from about five feet away, crumbling him to a pitiful puddle of tears, blood, and non-fat milk.
The work crew was depraved. When they didn't have us facing the wall for hours at a time we were digging ditches with spoons, only to fill them back in again.
We made huge piles of heavy rocks taken from the field, the field that both surrounded and contained us, only to be told to move the massive mound to another location. They worked us in ways redolent of Stalin's gulags.
There was an agonizing week of all-day sod laying - with bits of mud and grass sticking to the inside of my wool dress - in preparation for some ceremony the work crew boys weren't privy to. The Scarecrow Festival was even worse. We worked for weeks from eight in the morning till eight at night in preparation and to take down that contrived fall carnival/ fundraiser. Boys wished for death. There was also a dry-cleaning service that they operated somewhere in town, which was supposedly much better than any job on campus - even kitchen duty.
Getting off from work crew meant school during the day, and considerably less work. Some sadist there created a t-shirt caste system that involved wearing either a blue t-shirt or green t-shirt. "Blue shirts" could talk, receive letters (which were opened and read first), talk to their parents, and possibly go off campus.
"Green shirts" were allowed into school, but that was about it. No speaking, sitting, or anything but working or reading LDS literature. A "green shirt" was forced to read the Book of Mormon, in particular the first 22 chapters. We were interviewed by one of the four full-time Mormon missionaries that worked there and had to paraphrase all of "First Nephi" before receiving a blue t-shirt. What good derives from reading the Book of Mormon under duress is anyone's guess, but I did it. I had to.
I had to go to church and seminary too.
It turns out that any form of decadence - smoking a little grass, telling your math teacher to sit on it, being gay or bi-curious, sexually assaulting a family member or young girl - is curable by a little hard work, tough love, and Mormon doctrine. Boys with "sexual issues" are housed together in what could only be some cruel showing of satire.
They were constantly being caught jerking each other off onto each other, or, more tragically, assaulting younger boys. Whatever it was, they would be shoved into blankets and thrown on work crew. On Tuesday night they would meet with all the boys with sexual issues and provide remedies like IcyHot on the penis to stifle homosexual urges.
I was kept there until they couldn't keep me any longer, and on my 18th birthday I walked out the front doors into a cold October morning with nowhere to go and nothing but my freedom. If I didn't experience it myself I would not believe a place like this exists. A Mormon gulag.
How do they get away with all of the abuse? The forced religion, the stifling of freedom of speech? Was it legal to prevent us from reporting abuse to authorities, or to restrain us with ropes, wool blankets, and duct tape? Is it legal to force young boys to talk about masturbation with Mormon clergy and missionaries? How does all of this go unnoticed? We were young and naive and didn't know that most of what they did to us was illegal. Buttars was famous for telling us that we had only three rights: food, safety, and shelter. They failed to even live up to those standards.
Besides being callow, we hardly had the chance to report any abuse. They instruct parents to ignore any claims of abuse from their children. They call any complaints from children a manipulation tool - "fear factor" - and instruct parents to be wary of the "tactic" they say they encounter most.
There were also no phones to call the police. No nurses or medical examiners to talk to. No government authorities to check in on us. Incongruously, this Orwellian facility desperately needs government oversight.
Sen. Buttars said it all when he told a reporter, "What sets us apart is that we're the only residential treatment facility that doesn't seek or accept government funding. If we did, they'd control us."
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Uh, much of their "training" sounds ridiculously sexual.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We were interviewed by one of the four full-time Mormon missionaries that worked there and had to paraphrase all of "First Nephi" before receiving a blue t-shirt.
This is the only bit in the article that seems to tie the camp to some sort of sanction by the Church; and I'm having a difficult time believing that full-time missionaries worked on the ranch.
The camp sounds like it's in direct violation of a number of Church policies, not to mention commandments and doctrines.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Buttars' association with anything is basically proof of its evil. I'm being mostly serious. The man has some really twisted priorities.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hm... I don't know about that, Tom. I mean, as far as his wikipedia page is concerned, he's got a chronically offensive mouth; otherwise he seems pretty run-of-the-mill, GOP conservative.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"essentially tied" baloney. The presense of an LDS church member does NOT equal a church-sanctioned anything.
I don't believe for a second the missionaries are part of this. They have better things to do, and there isn't that kind of flexibility.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Well, there is more flexibility for missionary couples, who are engaged in many activities beyond proselyting. But I certainly hope that the author is mistaken and that it was not LDS missionaries who were there. *shudder* If they were, I would find it hard to believe that they understood all of the tactics used by this organization.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:otherwise he seems pretty run-of-the-mill, GOP conservative
Like I said.
Posted by Lanfear (Member # 7776) on :
I don't buy everything this guy is saying. He exaggerates that mutual is three hours long on wednesday night, when in reality its usually an hour or less....
Obviously not a big piece of the puzzle, but it leads to me suspect that he's stretching everything
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
(This was in response to the "all GOP are evil" post.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Keep in mind that's not a convincing argument.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
I think Sachar wrote this...
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
This writer is in the long time tradition (mostly started by Evangelical Christians) that any organization that has Mormons in it is automatically supported or lead by the Mormon Church and its leadership. At any rate, I don't believe even half of this. It is as equally hateful of Mormons and religion as the gulag experiences. That translates into bigotry and agenda more than facts.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In fairness to the writer, I can understand why being forced to read the Book of Mormon might produce a mental association with the LDS church.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's putting the bar pretty low for logical thought and truth in journalism. It's like saying being forced to read To Kill a Mockingbird creates the impression that it is sponsored by the state of Alabama.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's not journalism, Kat. It's fairly obvious that he's relating personal experiences to a prejudiced audience.
I didn't have an expectation of objectivity when I was reading the article.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not really....to kill a mockingbird isn't the primary text of the state of Alabama. The Book of Mormon exists, and was created by, Mormon's.
That being said, I HIGHLY doubt the LDS church was involved at all in this, it sounds like complete bull, and not just because of the people I have met here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then just a failure of logical thought, then, and casualness about slinging accusations.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, no. It creates the impression that it's sponsored by some group that wants you to read To Kill A Mockingbird. The state of Alabama would not be my first culprit.
And yet, were I asked to list groups who want me to read the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church would be very high on my list. Certainly it would be hard to argue that the group operating this camp does not consider itself to be an ally of the church. That's unfair to the church, obviously, but I don't think the writer is making the distinction between Utah Mormon culture and the LDS church that we see so many Mormons themselves struggle to maintain. It's been my observation that many ex-Mormons make this mistake.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The Book of Mormon exists, and was created by, Mormon's.
By Mormon's what?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you don't know, how would I?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I told the kitten, just before it died.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The butterflies weren't enough? You're feeding off kittens now?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I use a spoon.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I thought there is no spoon.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
ewwwwwwwwwwww!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The Book of Mormon exists, and was created by, Mormon's.
By Mormon's what?
I was just Mormon-baiting.
It worked.
(more of a grammar-freak baiting, but still....)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My sister-in-law works at one of those wild-child teenage facilities in Utah. She teaches English and History there.
It's quite the experience. She always has harrowing tales come Christmastime.
None, just to set the record straight, are owned, operated, or sponsored by the LDS church.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ewwwwwwwwwwww!
I KNOW! Everyone knows they taste better with a FORK. Darn Mormon's....
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ... wild-child teenage facilities ...
Wild-child facilities? Plural? There's a category for this?
I must admit, out of curiosity I'm trying to find the Canadian equivalent via google and not having much luck.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: I thought there is no spoon.
Oh, there is. And I've done despicable things with it.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Did you... :gasp: ...bend it?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Like Beckham.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There are enough inconsistencies in this story for me to doubt its veracity as a whole.
Child abuse is illegal whether its a government facility or not. If indeed there is evidence of systematic abuse and torture of children in this facility, I'd like to see everyone involved from Chris Buttars down to the parents who ignored complaints of abuse prosecuted.
I know this place was in trouble with the IRS and lots of accusations of abuse have been made. What's unclear is a) how much evidence their is to substantiate the claims or whether this is a vendetta against the place by those who disagree with its goals and b) whether there was any involvement of the LDS church beyond the fact that Chris Buttars and many associated with it are LDS.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's putting the bar pretty low for logical thought and truth in journalism. It's like saying being forced to read To Kill a Mockingbird creates the impression that it is sponsored by the state of Alabama.
That's possibly the worst analogy ever made in the history of life on Earth. Including Raptors. Yes. Raptors!
And as was said before, even if this were journalism, logical thought and objectivity are not always very highly valued. If you consider the bar to be, say, a Pulitzer, then I can think of one article that is neither objective nor at all logical that won this past year. We had a discussion about it at the time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Like Rabbit, I found myself rather skeptical on reading this thing. Granting that children are unlikely to report abuse while it's going on, here is this man who is apparently out of the camp, relating his experiences to... some random Internet site? Dude, child abuse remains illegal even in the state of Utah. Are there no police, no child-protection authorities? Don't tell the Internet, tell the dang law! Get your revenge by helping the current victims, not writing propaganda that will be forgotten tomorrow!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Child abuse is illegal whether its a government facility or not. If indeed there is evidence of systematic abuse and torture of children in this facility, I'd like to see everyone involved from Chris Buttars down to the parents who ignored complaints of abuse prosecuted.
The reason why I call this Tranquility Bay II is because stories of organizations like these have already been repeatedly substantiated and they're every bit as horrible as the author makes them out to be. They certainly exist, they've been around for a long time, and already other former prisoners have substantiated this guy's claims.
EXA:
quote:I was at the Boys Ranch during the same time period as Eric, the author. I was there from the time I was 15 until I was 18 with a small break when I was 16. I am now married, have a daughter and have a career in law enforcement. Safe to say that I am an entirely different person than who I was at that time. I can honestly say and put my reputation on the line saying that the statements made in the article are well within the realm of believability. While I did not witness every event that Eric speaks of in his article I witnessed plenty of my own.
One thing that anyone reading this article or any comment given by an individual that was there needs to take into consideration is that the majority of you can not imagine how terrifiying it is at 15 (or any age) to be blindly thrown into a situation like that, no understanding of what is happening or why. There are many people that have been employed by the UBR that took advantage of this and some that enjoyed it.
I personally was "restrained" as they would call it, multiple times in situations that were entirely out of line. I know for fact that the only time a law enforcement officer is allowed to legally use any type of force is when an individual is posing an immediate threat to themselves or others. I would imagine that the same would hold true with youth centers such as this but was applied to get compliance with directions, to obtain certain "attitudes" and often just because something was said that irritated them. Frequently pressure points were applied as well as painful twisting of body extensions, and at times blunt force i.e. hitting, slamming on ground or wall. I can think of a couple times where foreign objects were used. One such time involved a staff member, a shovel and a boy who was at the time 13. This is just a small portion and only one type of abuse that I personaly witnessed.
.
quote:whether there was any involvement of the LDS church beyond the fact that Chris Buttars and many associated with it are LDS.
The church is the biggest financier. Board of directors is comprised of prominent lds families, including the aforementioned politicians and the director of religion at BYU. There's LDS employees on campus. Missionaries, seminary teachers, a possible bishropric. Nearly all, if not all, of the staff, are LDS.
What the Church's organized response will be is vehemently deny that it is actually a product of the church and they will concentrate on talking about lack of culpability through 'official' connection to the Church of Mormon. They'll try to pass it off as being a private practice that you can't tie to the official church. The controversy will remain, however, based on the notion that this organization could only really operate without the acceptance of the church, including but certainly not limited to providing missionaries for the place.
The author's official position is that the ranch acts in a way that is 'diametrically opposed' to church teachings and he believes that while the facility has been funded and supported by the church, there exists no reason to believe that the Mormon leaders had sufficient knowledge of the abusive, unethical, and illegal operations of this ranch, and that now it is necessary for the church to officially condemn this place and end all ways in which it supports and permits the organization to exist.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
"The church is the biggest financier." I highly doubt that. Do you have any proof to anything you are saying? - other than comments on a blog. Give me a break...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Suppose for a moment that your church did turn out to be the biggest financier. What would you do?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:based on the notion that this organization could only really operate without the acceptance of the church,
What? Why? Because it takes place in Utah? There is no proof anywhere that the church has anything to do with it, and THAT fact is what is being held up as proof that the church actually does?
You know that Utah isn't actually run by the church, right? That there is a secular government?
I can't believe your post is sincere. You've got to be joking.
quote:Nearly all, if not all, of the staff, are LDS.
So what? Nearly all of the staff of Hatrack.com are LDS. The chuch doesn't own or run this either.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Suppose for a moment that your church did turn out to be the biggest financier. What would you do?
If the church was the biggest financier and these things really happened, I would expect the church to condemn the acts, fire the people responsible, and help law enforcement to procecute those that did illegal things.
The church doesn't allow sunday school classes for young kids to be taught by one man, so I would guess that they are pretty careful with other things that could lead to abuse...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And if those things did not happen, what would you do?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ... I'm having a difficult time believing that full-time missionaries worked on the ranch.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't believe for a second the missionaries are part of this. They have better things to do, and there isn't that kind of flexibility.
Believe it. This is from a pretty sympathetic source.
quote: 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."
Two full-time missionary couples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and two seminary teachers have been assigned to work with LDS youths. Other faiths provide clergy who also act as spiritual and moral advisers and to teach Bible studies.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... The church is the biggest financier.
Apparently not directly anyways:
quote: Monthly tuition is $2,500 and while some insurance programs and some church groups help out, parents and family members carry most of the financial burden.
With a stay at the ranch averaging between six and nine months, that puts the average price tag at between $15,000 and $22,500.
"Some parents have mortgaged their homes to put their boys here," Baird said. "But what price do you put on the life of a boy?"
...
While the school's $2.5 million a year operational budget is supported through tuitions, nearly all construction and its scholarships are funded by private donations and foundation gifts. The Scarecrow Festival at Gardner Village, for example, raises about $250,000 annually for scholarships for youths needing financial aid.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What? Why? Because it takes place in Utah? There is no proof anywhere that the church has anything to do with it, and THAT fact is what is being held up as proof that the church actually does?
Nobody is making that argument. "Because it takes place in Utah" doesn't even reference the actual argument made. You're basically savaging a conjured concept.
There are far more compelling arguments being actually made, such as the presence of missionaries and seminary teachers working there full-time.
quote:I can't believe your post is sincere. You've got to be joking.
It is possibly because you've managed to misread or invent portions of it. Trust me, I wouldn't say what you've insinuated of me. You may find my post a little bit more sincere if you take the time to interpret only what I've said, not what arguments I haven't made.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Suppose for a moment that your church did turn out to be the biggest financier. What would you do?
If it were true that the Church actually did finance and run a place like that, I would be pretty shocked, to put it mildly. I would want to know what the purpose of it was and why it went so contrary to the Church's long-established views on raising and teaching youth. I'd also want a more complete perspective on the place besides the one presented by the author. I would work against Church support of such a thing. Would I leave the Church and become a critic of the Church? No.
Personally, I think the whole idea of a place like this is wrong, or gotten terribly out of hand, the way it is described here. It goes contrary to the basic teachings of the Church about freedom of choice and love. I do not think the leadership of the Church is so two-faced as to support it; otherwise, the account and idea of it are being very skewed by the story.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Did the missionaries or seminary teachers commit any of the violations? Did they witness them? Also, why are the LDS clergy being singled out when other clergy were also involved?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I would want to know what the purpose of it was and why it went so contrary to the Church's long-established views on raising and teaching youth.
What would you do with this information? There seem to be two outcomes: One, you accept that the church had good reasons for its actions; two, you conclude that the church had made a fundamental mistake. What sort of information would convince you of the first, and what action would you take in the second?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My stepmother has a friend whose church is to teach Sunday School at a nearby prison.
That doesn't mean the church owns the prison.
So, to be clear, there are people there from the church serving as chaplains, and on that basis you have decided the church owns and operates the facility?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I do not think the leadership of the Church is so two-faced as to support it; otherwise, the account and idea of it are being very skewed by the story.
Hinkley got bulletins from the Utah Boys Ranch as early as 1996. He certainly seemed to support the place. The argument of the article's author is that the mormon leadership simply didn't know about what actually went on in those places and if they had they would have withdrawn support, much like some faiths withdrew support from WWASPS.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Samp, based on what? So far you have nothing but horrid allegations based on the flimsiest of excuses.
This kind of religious smeat technique is pretty common in anti circles. I'm disappointed that someone on Hatrack either swallowed it whole or else doesn't care that it is sketchy and is posting it anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So, to be clear, there are people there from the church serving as chaplains, and on that basis you have decided the church owns and operates the facility?
Show me, by quoting, where I have 'decided the church owns and operates the facility'
Failing that, at least admit that I have not actually made that statement nor argued that case.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What do you think financed and operated means?
Do you understand that providing chaplain services does equal a blessing on everything that happens? If what he says is true, it would be MORE important to provide chaplain services, not less. Withdrawing the missionaries would do nothing to the owners and only hurt the kids in the place.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Show me, by quoting, where I have 'decided the church owns and operates the facility.'
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"The church is the biggest financier."
What do you think that means?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "The church is the biggest financer."
What do you think that means?
I can be the biggest financier, directly or indirectly, to a private organization, such as a bank. It does not mean that I own that bank. The bank remains a private entity.
The church being the biggest financier, directly or indirectly, to the camp in question, does not mean that the church owns or operates the camp. The camp remains a private entity.
Mentioning that the church is the biggest financier is in no way a statement that the church owns or operates the camp. The camp remains a private entity.
So the statement is not actually a quote where I have 'decided the church owns and operates the facility.'
I'll say it again: at least admit that I have not actually made that statement nor argued that case.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't understand why you have brought up the church, then. If, according to you, it neither or owns nor operates the facility, then why are you bringing it up? Because missionaries serve as chaplains?
(By the way, the "biggest financier" thing is still baloney. There's no proof, and absense of proof is not actually proof.)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I knew a couple of kids who got sent to this kind of place, for being persistently naughty.
It didn't cure them. It just permanently ruined their relationship with their parents.
Forcing kids to be righteous is about the stupidest idea I've ever heard of. That Buttars is associated with stupidity isn't surprising at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't understand why you have brought up the church, then.
You don't understand this because you completely misconstrued my actual statements.
We have to begin with you at least admitting that I have not made the statements you claimed I have made and that you understand this. If you're not willing to do even that, and provide some sort of a good faith indication that you are open to correcting yourself, then where am I supposed to go from here?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
WHAT is the purpose of bringing up the church in this thread? If according to you it does not own or operate it, then why are you accusing the church of making/letting it happen?
Do you WANT the church to have the power to shut down legal, private businesses? I sure don't.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Once more: Suppose it were proven that the church was giving a lot of money to this place. What action would you take, if any?
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Samprimary,
You have made many insinuations that the church is responsible for this place. Here are a few:
"it's essentially tied to the LDS"
"The church is the biggest financier"
"There's LDS employees on campus"
"What the Church's organized response will be is vehemently deny that it is actually a product of the church" (implication that the place IS a product of the church)
"they will concentrate on talking about lack of culpability through 'official' connection to the Church of Mormon" (implication that there is a real connection between the church and this place that is somehow intentionally hidden)
"They'll try to pass it off as being a private practice that you can't tie to the official church" (more of the same)
"The controversy will remain, however, based on the notion that this organization could only really operate without the acceptance of the church, including but certainly not limited to providing missionaries for the place"
"it is necessary for the church to officially condemn this place and end all ways in which it supports and permits the organization to exist"
I hope you can see how these statements imply that you think the church is heavily involved...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: WHAT is the purpose of bringing up the church in this thread? If according to you it does not own or operate it, then why are you accusing the church of making/letting it happen?
Do you WANT the church to have the power to shut down legal, private businesses? I sure don't.
I certainly have an excellent reply, but it hinges on you being mature and admitting that I have not made the statements you claimed I have made. I could hardly ask more directly. If you still decline to make that sort of simple gesture, then I can't have much faith that there's any real point to your challenges, since they'll mostly consist of me being continually pressed by you to defend myself from things I have not done or said.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I agree the church should condemn this place and places like it.
It has a heavy Mormon flavor, no doubt about it. That is not the fault of the LDS church, but the church should recognize the fact of the flavor and officially, loudly, and Buttars-smackingly disavow everything the ranch is doing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samprimary,
You have made many insinuations that the church is responsible for this place. Here are a few:
"it's essentially tied to the LDS"
There are a lot of controversial ties to the LDS. Between the fact that an operation like this could not realistically continue were the LDS to take a stand against it (as opposed to condoning it), and the fact that they provide full-time staff, there's a tie-in to the LDS with this controversial camp.
This is different than saying that the church itself is ultimately responsible for the camp. No, it's just connected to the camp. If these connections are ultimately bad for the image of the church, or morally require a change, the church probably needs to rescind even tacit support and actually speak out against it.
quote:"What the Church's organized response will be is vehemently deny that it is actually a product of the church" (implication that the place IS a product of the church)
A poor implication. If this story gets any real exposure or the ranch otherwise becomes a news item, the church will have an organized response and it will be to deny that the ranch is a product of the church.
quote:I hope you can see how these statements imply that you think the church is heavily involved...
I definitely think that there is necessarily some involvement by the church. It's an easy case to make.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A point to note: Since the LDS church gives most adult males the priesthood, then theologically, if not bureaucratically, the LDS church is involved just through having members in good standing running the place. This is the flip side of continuing revelation and personal witness. If these things are really reliable, why hasn't a testimony against this camp been given to its counselors?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I grew up in Arizona, and this seems part of the Western, cowboy culture more then the LDS. I heard a lot about them at the time Sheriff Joe was very popular. It also strikes me as similar to those Maury shows were they send the kids to boot camp (which I have never actually watched so my impression from seeing commercials may not be accurate).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm well acquainted with the phenom of wasp camps. What's new about this one is its relationship to the LDS and the fact that it doubtlessly has a high population of kids who were sent to it and brutalized for years in the name of 'curing' their homosexuality. Tranquility Bay didn't have those aspects, so this is an emotion-inspiring tale.
It is, indeed, inspiring a lot of hate. My sympathy to the LDS in regards to this story and their 'flavor' association depends on whether or not they summarily denounce this camp. If they don't, I'll wonder why not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:such as the presence of missionaries and seminary teachers working there full-time.
Samprimary, this isn't a logical statement when you understand what missionary work and seminary teaching entails.
My guess is that these folks are not full-time employees. For example, when I was a missionary, I worked with a group that provided jobs for mentally handicapped adults. We served for about 4 hours a week.
What's more, missionaries have a great deal of autonomy in choosing what to do where they're serving. And good service opportunities are passed down by companionships when their term is up.
The seminary teacher likely goes along with the school-- in Utah, seminary classes can be taken during the school day.
To kind of keep things parallel-- I worked at Utah State Hospital while my wife was going to BYU. USH is a mental health institution, run by the state. There is a church on the grounds; there is a Mormon bishop assigned, with counselors, to serve the people who want to come to church, and to administer to the hospital. Other churches have pastors and priests that hold services there as well. The fact that they're there doesn't make them complicit with any wrongdoing by the staff of the hospital.
The follow up to the link you posted-- the now-cop who said he saw the same thing as the kid in your original post-- is interesting. While I was at USH, they gave a class on restraining patients, and what was allowable from a state law standpoint. According to the class, it is legal to use certain pressure points, and certain restraining holds in order to physically control an out of control patient; to a fifteen year-old kid, obviously these things would be really frightening and painful. I never saw any one actually use the techniques on a patient, though we did try them out on each other occasionally.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:it doubtlessly has a high population of kids who were sent to it and brutalized for years in the name of 'curing' their homosexuality.
'Doubtlessly?' I doubt it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The fact that they're there doesn't make them complicit with any wrongdoing by the staff of the hospital.
In all seriousness: why not?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why should it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think there's a level of cooperation implied, especially if their post is continuously staffed. I know I'd be reluctant to be a Red Cross volunteer at a concentration camp; sure, I might be providing benefits to the people there, but in so doing I'm complicit with and providing legitimacy to the camp itself.
It's even more problematic here, since clearly religious indoctrination via church volunteers is seen as part of the "rehabilitation" program. Again, that's not necessarily the church's fault, but it seems inconceivable that the church-provided volunteers are unaware of this fact -- and given this fact, that the church permits this status quo implies its acceptance of that status quo.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Assuming the kids' tale of religious indoctrination is true, you mean.
quote:I think there's a level of cooperation implied, especially if their post is continuously staffed.
How do you define "continuously staffed?" 40 hours a week? 20? 4?
quote:It's even more problematic here, since clearly religious indoctrination via church volunteers is seen as part of the "rehabilitation" program. Again, that's not necessarily the church's fault, but it seems inconceivable that the church-provided volunteers are unaware of this fact -- and given this fact, that the church permits this status quo implies its acceptance of that status quo.
What is it that you think the church volunteers would be unlikely to be unaware of? The religious parts of rehabilitation, or abuse by staff and other patients?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Withdrawing the missionaries and all chaplain services would hurt the kids there a great deal more than anyone.
If these allegations of abuse are true, then complaints, accusations of complicity, and outrage should be directed towards the government of the state of Utah and the federal government. Abuse is illegal, and systematic abuse is something that the government can and should and would be dealing with.
Child abuse has also been soundly, roundly, and often condemned by the church.
Why aren't they? Why is this a complaint against one of the churches providing chaplain services and not a call for a full-on criminal investigation by the state? Where are the police? The social workers? Where are the calls for THEM to get involved? The people with the responsibility and power to police such an institution?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Assuming the kids' tale of religious indoctrination is true, you mean.
I visited the website, and the greenshirt/blueshirt division is clearly visible in photos and acknowledged by people posting on the forum. In all cases, memorization of portions of the Book of Mormon is cited as one prerequisite for blueshirt status. Greenshirts are also not permitted (according to the posters on the site) to read anything outside of school that is not Mormon scripture.
quote:What is it that you think the church volunteers would be unlikely to be unaware of? The religious parts of rehabilitation, or abuse by staff and other patients?
From the description of the camp's workings and schedules, I think it's highly unlikely that the volunteers are unaware of any of this, although I think it's possible that the "seminary" teachers might have a Potemkin view of the situation.
-------
quote:Withdrawing the missionaries and all chaplain services would hurt the kids there a great deal more than anyone.
Um....I'm not saying that people shouldn't be complaining to the government of Utah, mind, although the fact that a powerful state senator and a number of prominent LDS leaders sit on the camp's board certainly makes that less likely to be successful. But on what grounds do you argue that the church volunteers provide a useful service?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Of course you think ministerial service is useless. That is not true for everyone.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:From the description of the camp's workings and schedules
Can you provide a link?
Also, can you define what you're calling a volunteer? Are you talking about the missionaries, and the seminary teachers, and the bishop and his folks?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Of course you think ministerial service is useless. That is not true for everyone.
So you're saying that the Red Cross should provide free medical service to concentration camps, because otherwise the people in the camps would really suffer?
----------
quote:Also, can you define what you're calling a volunteer? Are you talking about the missionaries, and the seminary teachers, and the bishop and his folks?
I'm definitely including the on-site missionaries and Bishopric. Not so much the teacher(s), since they appear to be based off-site at a local extension school. Of course, since the whole Utahn tradition of seminary class in public school is one that I consider morally bankrupt, I'm not going to give 'em much credit for that one. *grin*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hmmm...one site that I read elaborated on the missionaries question:
quote:When I entered the chapel at the academy this morning, there was a line of about 10 "church service" missionaries there. These are generally retired couples who live in the Salt Lake area who volunteer 40 hours + per week. They do a great work there. They are the ones who help provide spiritual guidance to the young men and women throughout the week. The church service missionaries work closely with the Branch Presidency.
Tom, I'd really like to see whatever schedule you found; I couldn't find one...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:one site that I read elaborated on the missionaries question
Why not visit the site actually cited in the blog?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Sorry, posted a repeat of the Desert news article but thought I'd delete it until after reading the site that TomD was referring to)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Mucus, "full time missionary" might mean they are missionaries full time, not that they are working on this assignment full time. (They could be spending part of their missionary time elsewhere.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:one site that I read elaborated on the missionaries question
Why not visit the site actually cited in the blog?
What site? The Utah Boy's Ranch site, or the Orato website?
I've visited both. I'm not sure what your point is, Tom.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Can't find any mention of the academy at the LDS Foundation website despite what the author suspected. The actual academy website is pretty disturbing though.
scifibum: Thats theoretically possible, but kinda misleading wording especially considering Scott's cited blog post. i.e. "I walked into Marks & Spencer. There were 10 full-time salespeople spending 40 hours of their time selling clothes.*"
* Just you know, not actually for Marks & Spencer.
But sure, its a possibility.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The actual academy website is pretty disturbing though.
What did you find disturbing about it?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I have no idea what this place's relationship to the LDS Church is, or how accurate the account may be. I would find it more convincing with less purple of prose, though. It reads more like a cross between a Playboy Letter to the Editor and The Eye of Argon than a detailed report on a troubling site.
quote:"I guess we're driving," Paul said odiously.
???
That's a lot of odious.
But seriously, where is the belligerent loincloth?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott,
From your link, what does this responsibility likely entail?
"Our Stake is responsible for sponsoring two LDS Church Branches at the academy (one branch for the boys, and another branch for the girls). "
I am (perhaps incorrectly?) equating "stake" with "parish". Often Catholic parishes will take on specific charities separate from charities that the Church as a whole endorses like Catholic Charities or St. Vincent de Paul. For example, our parish has "adopted" and is rebuilding a town in Mississippi after Katrina. This is specific to us, not to the archdiocese, though if we picked a charity that was "bad" we would hear about it from them.
Do stakes operate that way? In which case it may just be some stakes making bad decisions rather than the Church of LDS as a whole. Though the possibility of sponsorship by the Foundation is more troublesome.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I would have every expectation that the LDS Church would be concerned at learning of this place, investigate fully insofar as they are able, and very vocally and emphatically distance themselves as appropriate.
---
Added: I look forward to reading that this happened.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Our Stake is responsible for sponsoring two LDS Church Branches
I'm not precisely sure what 'sponsoring' means; probably it means that they send members to the branches at the academy to administer the sacrament and give sermons; it may mean setting up adults to visit the kids occasionally and check up on them.
quote:Though the possibility of sponsorship by the Foundation is more troublesome.
Well; if these allegations are true (and I'm still not inclined to trust the narratives), then I expect the Church to put pressure on the school to either revamp their programs, or lose the funding.
Like kat, I wonder where police involvement is in this situation.
quote:Where is the belligerent loincloth?
Bless your heart, CT.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't understand why the church is being asked to investigate and the police are not.
It seems like there is an assumption of much greater authority and power belonging to the church than actually exists. If it is not owned or operated by the Church, how are they supposed to shut it down? Since the church has on many, many occasions been very clear about the repugnancy of child abuse, how can it be assumed that an exception is being made in this case? Especially when there are is no structure or authority to investigate non-church, private businesses.
If the conditions are really so terrible, why aren't the police involved? The organization that DOES have the power to shut it down has been completely ignored. Is that because there isn't actually anything illegal or criminal happening?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Honestly, it would never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never have occurred to me that the police wouldn't be called on to investigate, first dibs. Well, duh. I just had figured that any religious organization in such a public situation as this would automatically seek to clarify its relationship as well.
If not, then, color me surprised, but I wear that color well. *shrug
---
Added: When I said I expected the LDS Church would "investigate," I did not mean a criminal investigation, but an examination of their own entanglements and liability, if any, whether the claims ended up being assessed as true or not -- just because allegations of severe child abuse are something I would always expect any person or organization involved to wish to independently assess, himself/herself/itself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nowhere have I seen any mention of the police being called or a police investigation. Or a police investigation in the past and the results of it.
If the police have been called, it hasn't been mentioned. If they have been called and found nothing criminal happening, then that makes an enormous difference. It is very relevant.
If they have never been called, I want to know why.
ETA: Ah, I see. The Church never releases the results of church courts and investigations of abuse, for privacy reasons. If such things make the news, it is because the subject of the investigations have spilled. So, we don't know if it has happened or not.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If the police have been called, it hasn't been mentioned. If they have been called and found nothing criminal happening, then that makes an enormous difference. It is very relevant.
*shrug
Regardless, I would be surprised if the LDS Church made no official statement. Of course, I get surprised all the time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why do you expect an official statement? What makes this different from all the other prisons and other places where churches have chaplain services?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
katharina, I wish you well.
[That's about all I can and will respond to your posts right now, so I'll leave it at that.]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why do you expect an official statement? What makes this different from all the other prisons and other places where churches have chaplain services?
For one thing, a prison has laws surrounding its use, and nobody goes to prison without a trial by a jury of his peers. (In the West, at least.) For another, a prison chaplain has no power to force anyone to come to his services.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Scott R: Keep at this that I'm coming at this from a Canadian perspective, pretty much the whole concept of religiously segregated schools is vaguely disturbing to me. In fact, we recently had a debate about extending public funding to religious schools in Ontario which was quickly shut down when the party that proposed the idea saw how unpopular it was, especially among immigrants (and it raised sticky questions about removing funding from Catholic schools which are an anachronism from a compromise to form Confederation, but thats another whole issue).*
In any case, I don't think we'll get agreement on that issue, don't really want a debate on the whole concept of religious schools. However, since you asked, that cultural difference is definitely playing a part.
Another issue is the description of what parents should do if the kid wants to get out. I guess I'm still young enough to find the idea of being stuck in such a place with my parents following these instructions pretty disturbing.
quote: Typically your child will be uncomfortable or in denial as to the reasons he/she is here. He/she may try several types of manipulation to get your attention and to help himself/herself cope. Usually, these are the same manipulative or coping behaviors he/she used with you in the past. It is our goal to change those negative behaviors so your child can function appropriately in society. You may see the following attempts at manipulation:
" Deathbed Repentance. Examples include "I see the errors of my ways." "I have changed and you can take me home now." "I will be good."
" It may feel good to not be the bad guy and be in the position to rescue your child. Or you may be in pain yourself and want to have your child at home. Don't fall for this manipulation. Beware of believing that your child has the capacity to change this quickly, or that he/she is sincerely repentant. Nearly all of our students attempt this manipulation in some form, yet not a single one has the skills needed to successfully return home at this point. They will relapse and resume their bad behaviors.
" Negotiation. Example: "If you take me out of here, I will be good forever!"
" Your child is not in the position to negotiate. His/her integrity has not been developed and change will take time. Your child will not have the inner resources to maintain any lasting change at all.
" Hostage Taking. Example: "If you leave me at West Ridge, I will hate you forever." "If you leave me here, I will run away or hurt myself."
...
(cut short, it goes on for about half more)
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. But from the description, it appears that the place is K-12.
* This isn't to say that the academy is publicly funded. Its explicitly not, but just to illustrate the cultural gap
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The police may, indeed, be involved.
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
katharina:
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
And this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kate--
You mention things that are legal but unethical that might be occurring at Westridge. Were you thinking of any specific examples?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Kate--
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.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
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.
Gah.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Yeah, but who said I was typical?
Precisely my point.
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 by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
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?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I am saying that there are allegations of things that may be unethical but possibly still legal.
Right. I'm asking you what it is you're seeing that is possibly unethical.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't expect that you do. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
True. But I submit that reading this as an attack on the church rather than concern for the children involved is remarkably uncharitable.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thanks for your opinion of me. I don't find it relevant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What? Complete non sequitur. And a bad analogy. There's already a thread for that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I love my Church - which is why I almost never give it the benefit of the doubt on stuff like this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Tom, I find it unethical as well.
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).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
katharina, dominating Utah politics is not the same thing as running the government.
I don't see why you'd be bothered by someone pointing out the degree of influence the LDS church has on Utah's government.
There's not even much pretense about it. Read this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't follow your link.
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.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
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.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Piffle, you could still masturbate. Any evangelical will tell you that's wrong.
I am not demanding that people be disfellowshipped when they do something that is wrong by the Church's lights, I am saying that unless the Church makes it publicly clear that action X is wrong, then its members must be assumed to be acting with its sanction and under your individual version of divine guidance.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nonsense. Silence does not mean consent.
Also, the church has spoken out very clearly against child abuse and there are piles and piles of things on how to lead and teach righteously.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
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".
I'm no longer a believing member, but I think you're comically misapprehending the nature of the guidance LDS church members believe they have access to. I'm pointing this out in the assumption you were not just taunting, of course.
Divine guidance is not at all supposed (by church members) to be some sort of autopilot, making decisions for them.
And many (most) actions of most LDS people have nothing to do with their religions. Walk or ride? Soup or salad?
Is there another belief that you think is so inextricable from the actions of every person who holds it?
Or, if your point is that divine guidance should rule out bad behavior, you're still misunderstanding. The belief is that everyone is prone to bad behavior and that seeking and using the guidance of God is a choice, and conditioned on various things. Nothing prevents someone from doing that on some occasions and not others.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
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.
No, I meant what I said. That is not how the Church works. It is not how the Church does things. There is no reason or desire for the Church to work in that way. It does no good for anyone. That's what I meant. Perhaps you misinterpreted. Nevertheless, if such things are indeed happening, and the Church can act to correct it, it should. But it is not the Church that is instigating the abuse and coercion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I will try to rephrase my point. First, almost all humans will try to do the right thing by their lights; deliberate evil is extremely rare. Second, we all fail in this occasionally; to take an example close to home, I ought to be working, not posting. Nevertheless: All else held equal, one would expect direct access to divine guidance to give greater success in avoiding wrong action. To the extent that Mormons are as prone to evil action as the general population, that is a failure of the religion; if divine guidance does not help in achieving right action, what use is it, even on the religion's own terms? Now this is a failure mode of all religions, but it seems to me particularly acute for Mormons, who do not consider divine guidance to be restricted to a small elite.
quote:And many (most) actions of most LDS people have nothing to do with their religions. Walk or ride? Soup or salad?
Of course not. I was talking about actions with moral content. Seriously, duh.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But it is not the Church that is instigating the abuse and coercion.
To the extent that the church is its members, and Mormonism insists on this to a greater extent than is usual among Christians, then whatever its members do, that is what the church does.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
KoM- I would compare LDS divine revelations to a prof offering office hours. In theory, a teacher who holds office hours should have students who do better then those that don't. But in my experience, very very few students use office hours, even when they should. This isn't a fault of the teacher or the class, but the student. If the people in charge of this camp really took the time to pray about it, they probably would find out they are doing wrong. But if they assume they already know what is right and wrong and don't pray, then they will still go wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The thing about the LDS church is that it is structured and hierarchial. It means that there is a clear line between what are church organizations and what are not, especially since the early 1970s when everything was brought together.
If church members create organizations that are not within that structure, then the actions of those organizations are not "the Church."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am convinced that if you asked Senator Buttars, he would tell you that he had, indeed, prayed, and had received guidance that it was necessary to be tough with these children in order to be loving. He would likely quote some verses from the Bible or the BoM to underscore his point. Will you tell him, then, that his divine guidance is wrong? Perhaps he's tuned to the wrong channel?
(As a side note - two, in fact - I don't know that 'children' is the right word to use for people who are well into their teens, and to call a tough reform school, even if there is physical abuse, a 'gulag' is rather diminishing the force of the word. Gulags kill.)
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:But it is not the Church that is instigating the abuse and coercion.
To the extent that the church is its members, and Mormonism insists on this to a greater extent than is usual among Christians, then whatever its members do, that is what the church does.
That is often true in public perception.
The Church has a very definite leadership structure, and very definite directives and guidelines. I suspect this is where we are disagreeing. I am talking about the Church as an entity defined by its general leadership. As in, when you get some sort of official communication from "the Church," you are not getting something written and approved by every Church member. It is coming from some office in the Church leadership authorized to make such a communication. If you hear about Microsoft announcing some business deal, is it every single employee making the announcement or even responsible for it? No, it is Microsoft's senior leadership, representing the company.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair enough, we were using the word 'church' in different senses. I do think that for purposes of morality, 'the members' is a better referent than 'the leadership', because the leadership cannot very well make the moral choices for the members, only the bureaucratic ones. If you'll check back a couple of pages, you'll observe that in my first post on this subject I used the phrase 'theologically, if not bureaucratically'; I think this expresses the distinction I'm making.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I am convinced that if you asked Senator Buttars, he would tell you that he had, indeed, prayed, and had received guidance that it was necessary to be tough with these children in order to be loving. He would likely quote some verses from the Bible or the BoM to underscore his point. Will you tell him, then, that his divine guidance is wrong? Perhaps he's tuned to the wrong channel?
(As a side note - two, in fact - I don't know that 'children' is the right word to use for people who are well into their teens, and to call a tough reform school, even if there is physical abuse, a 'gulag' is rather diminishing the force of the word. Gulags kill.)
Senator Buttars would still be acting completely on his own, and not in any Church capacity whatsoever. In his position he is not entitled to inspiration on behalf of these people. I would like to know what Book of Mormon scripture he would quote as well. Perhaps you know, since you can predict his actions so well?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Other churches have pastors and priests that hold services there as well. The fact that they're there doesn't make them complicit with any wrongdoing by the staff of the hospital.
As someone who’s been a chaplain (although hospital, not school), and who has been invited in as clergy to lead worship at other institutions, I’d like to say something about that aspect. If a chaplain knows that there is abuse going on and continues to work/volunteer there without reporting it to the authorities then they are absolutely complicit and responsible for condoning it. As much as any other person who knows and says nothing, and, IMO, they have an additional level of sin in the omission because they are seen as representing their church/faith tradition and possibly even as representing God. So if they know of abuse and keep quiet they are saying to the child that the church/God condones the abuse. And I am not singling out the LDS missionaries, this is true of all the chaplains/church volunteers there, whatever their particular religion/denomination.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I actually agree with both sides.
This is not an LDS Church sponsored camp of any kind and might go against its teachings. To associate the two shows simplistic thinking, lack of knowledge or care of how Mormonism works, and even religious bigotry. The Church has no authority (religious/theological or legal) to do anything about the camp. No matter how many bishops, priests, missionaries, or members are involved it is not considered part of the LDS Church authority structure. They are separate entities with a will of their own.
However, so far as there is any kind of abuse going on it is up to individuals to do something about the situation. What that means (to put it into context of how Mormons view authority) individual sins are dealt with at an individual level. This can't be brought up to the Highest leadership of the LDS Church until it is brought up with the lowest rung of the authority structure. If this place is doing things against the teachings of the LDS Church, then there are individual Mormons who are not fulfilling their duties. In other words, currently this is a local issue as far as authority responsibilities. It is true that Higher authorities can nudge the lower ones into action. The question is if this (in context with other international concerns and the questionable source of the information) requires such a nudge.
P.S. this is why you will hear of individual Mormon excommunications, but you will never hear of mass excommunications such as whole congregations.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Nonsense. Silence does not mean consent."
It does is a member of your organization does something while invoking the organizations name.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"It does [if] a member of your organization does something while invoking the organizations name."
I assure you if this organization did invoke the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then the Church would most definitely be all over this with or without abuse. There are few things that evoke the response of the Church leadership than an organization that implies it is sponsored by them when they are not. Just for clarification, there is a difference between those who say they are doing something *as* and *within the teachings* of Mormons and saying they do so under the authority or approval of the Church.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Occasional,
You just described a line that I've observed some MLM entrepreneurs to skirt closely. (For instance, the mail-order PhD behind "The pH Miracle" and associated MLM products has been known to bear his testimony that the church and his health supplements are true.) As long as they don't come right out with it, they're going to avoid that official response, is that what you're saying? Selling the association through hints and innuendo is not really much better, IMO.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The Church has no authority (religious/theological or legal) to do anything about the camp.
They may not have the authority, but they have the power. It's a religious-oriented camp in Utah. If the LDS church came out and said that it was abusive, and that no person of moral conscience should work for such a place, do you really think it would stay open?
If the LDS church said that Buttars was wrong to support such a place, do you think he'd stay in Congress?
The LDS church was quick enough to butt into the laws of California, but abuse of teens in their own backward, by their own people is something they are helpless to do anything about?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: It does is a member of your organization does something while invoking the organizations name.
That's not necessarily true, either.
"In the name of the government of the United States, I eat these kittens!"
The fact that the government didn't stop me, or even say anything does not imply consent.
quote:The LDS church was quick enough to butt into the laws of California, but abuse of teens in their own backward, by their own people is something they are helpless to do anything about?
Don't get ahead of yourself-- there hasn't even been an investigation as far as we know. There have been allegations of abuse by some kids who were at the facility; and there have also been accounts refuting these kids' experiences.
As far as we know, there has been no official investigation of Westridge Academy; there have been no official charges of abuse. As CT pointed out, there have been anecdotes.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
The government of the United States doesn't know you did it. (By the way, it was pretty rude of you to eat those without offering any to the rest of us.)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Don't get ahead of yourself"
I think this was my point associated with "in their own backward." The LDS Church with at least 6 Million active members in hundereds of countries and more than 100,000 people in all 50 U.S. States has greater concerns than one camp that doesn't (yet?) even have legal troubles. Despite all the rhetoric and stereotypes, the LDS Church is not the police and doesn't act like they are.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Precisely my point.
Not really sure what you mean. I felt disturbed because according to the rules of the place, I (or a person similar to me) could easily imagine being wrongly trapped in such a place according the rules that are actually posted on their website.
That there exist some people that may (or may not, I'd argue anyways) that "should" be stuck in such a place, doesn't do much to alleviate my own discomfort.
quote: Hm...while I think that religion is weighted, and important, I still don't see this as a religious school primarily.
Well, I'd have to respectfully disagree. The two criteria I'd personally use for a school to be a religious school is a) to teach religion as if it were true or b) to limit membership by religion
Now, there are a few borderline cases, such as conversion-oriented schools in Hong Kong that opportunistically admitted anyone in hopes of converting people through the promise of better schooling (which fulfill the first, but not the second criteria), but this school seems to fit both anyways.
But in any case, we're dwelling on semantics. I was not disapproving because the school presented itself as a religious school (stop), but because it presented a philosophy and curriculum that I judged as both religious (and a membership that is religiously segregated). Whatever we *call* it, the disagreement still exists.
(I'm just responding for clarification. As I said a couple posts ago, "I don't think we'll get agreement on that issue, don't really want a debate on the whole concept of religious schools.")
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(This was in response to the "all GOP are evil" post.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)