posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you expect an official statement? What makes this different from all the other prisons and other places where churches have chaplain services?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I just had figured that any religious organization in such a public situation as this would automatically seek to clarify its relationship as well.
