posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many members of the legislature are also members of the Church. That is not the same thing as Church leadership being responsible for actions by the state government.
Not generally, but in the case of the LDS church I would have to disagree. As I've pointed out repeatedly, if you are going to say that everyone has a testimony and a direct divine guidance, then the consequence is that your religion and church actually is responsible for the actions of its members. If it disagrees with them, it must make it clear that they are not acting in accordance with its teachings, or else be assumed complicit. You can't say, on the one hand, "He has the guidance of the Holy Spirit", and on the other "His religion had nothing to do with that particular action".
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Coercion and abuse go completely counter to how the Church works
I must note, if the allegations about this camp are true, then your statement is false. "How the church works" is a statement about facts, to be checked against reality; if the church does in fact use abuse and coercion, then these are not counter to how it works. You probably intended to put an 'ought to' somewhere in your statement.
It remains to be seen whether this camp is a counterexample, of course.
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.")
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
