Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Red-eleven t1_iwiwafo wrote

Comes out you say?

141

GoddessOfTheRose t1_iwj4s4c wrote

The number of people who have been driven out just kept rising, because they don't accept gay people.

51

sweet-tea-13 t1_iwj5wc1 wrote

They still don't within the church. This isn't a change on their doctrine, they support this because it includes an ammendment that says religious organizations are exempt from this bill.

77

GoddessOfTheRose t1_iwj6xyw wrote

I went to a boarding school with rules based around the Mormon faith. Those people will die before accepting anyone who's different.

44

blazelet t1_iwjdh7w wrote

I’m a former member of a Mormon bishopric and completely agree with this. Mormons will never actually change in their position on same sex marriage … but they are terrified of the legal liability of same sex marriage being legal and them not allowing it in their buildings. This law protects them on religious grounds which is a big win for them.

And for my part, I think that’s great. Let’s make sure it’s legal nationally, if old bigoted religions don’t want to perform same sex ceremonies then let them die on that hill.

30

ReflectionEterna t1_iwjhguh wrote

For anyone who is seeking faith, but don't want to be treated as less than human, there are many Christian denominations (and I am sure within other faiths as well) who will love and accept you! We all deserve to love and be loved. We shouldn't have to make sacrifices just to be able to do so. I love you all.

12

sweet-tea-13 t1_iwj7t97 wrote

Ah that sounds awful, sorry you had to go to a school like that. I was never mormon but I'm an exjw (the mormons cult-cousin) and can confirm they will also never accept lgbt people, it's a hill they most certainly will die on. I hope it keeps driving people out as those views become less and less acceptable. It was actually one of the first things that made me really start questioning things before I woke up.

8

[deleted] t1_iwj5icp wrote

[removed]

132

wijenshjehebehfjj t1_iwjafhk wrote

It’s absolutely progress if the religious position is “do what you want but don’t make us participate”, instead of “we don’t like that so no one can do it”, which was their position on everything since forever.

70

MrsApostate t1_iwlgrm5 wrote

It is progress, I agree. However, given that the Mormon church has been dragged toward it kicking and screaming, I'm not inclined to give them any sort of kudos for it.

6

TauKei t1_iwkhjf5 wrote

It is progress, just not on their part. They were forced to move from "nobody gets same-sex marriage" to "we won't stop you, but we won't participate". That's societal progress.

42

apathyontheeast t1_iwlc2m2 wrote

"And we want to enshrine our ability to discriminate in law" is the rest of it.

5

TauKei t1_iwleqo7 wrote

You missed my point. I explicitly said the progress isn't theirs and I never said we were there.

My point is their (overt) goal has been forced away from "our brand of discrimination should be enshrined in law" to "please let us discriminate in our domains", a far more constrained goal. This shows that they no longer consider their former goal as achievable, due to society's progress toward acceptance of LGBTQIA rights. That is the progress I'm talking about.

9

apathyontheeast t1_iwlff1a wrote

Oh, no. I was agreeing with you, just saying the quiet part out loud for the audience.

8

andthendirksaid t1_iwjag3f wrote

Yeah this is pretty transparent and I came to say the same shit. The mention of their willingness to respect the rights as a "you do it your way we do it ours, and that's okay." is absolutely calculated and will be referred back to when they're asked what's up with that.

9

PizzaPet t1_iwldtvp wrote

Who is gonna ask them what's up? We know Mormons don't support gay people and they shouldn't have to. Ask the writer of this article what's up with the misleading headline? That's just bad journalism.

0

andthendirksaid t1_iwnqsl5 wrote

That's basically what I mean. They know damm well they could never do it on the UT state level or anything but it'll serve as a goodwill counterweight like "we support(ed) their right to legal marriage, not in our churches now leave us alone". Fighting the tide isn't worth it and they can see that and while its not the most hopeful endeavor but some people are looking to reform the church and now the separation of church and state argument is going to be used to allow churches to keep only marrying straight couples rather now that the work is done legally there.

2

SilverNicktail t1_iwjat2k wrote

Just like how they had a revelation on polygamy on the eve of legislation banning it.

9

HowOffal t1_iwjbtg0 wrote

Polygamy was already banned prior to the 1890 Manifesto. The Church was in deep trouble—Congress had disincorporated the Church and confiscated its assets—so this revelation served as a Hail Mary play to save the Church.

11

Cylon_Skin_Job_2_10 t1_iwjfi6g wrote

I’m not exMO, but exJW, so oddball fundie evangelical cousins. I look at it this way. If we can keep religion from impacting broader secular life through legislation, it’s a win.

The work of pushing these religious institutions to internally stop using their belief system to be bigots, will take place on the social front. Give the religions their little safe space so they stop using their numbers to pressure legislators to fuck up the laws for the whole country, and then take them to task in the court of public opinion for how their bullshit ideas hurt people regardless. It’s a battle these religious institutions are slowly loosing and they will either have to change or die off.

7

swiftsafflina t1_iwlmcm9 wrote

I grew up mormon and can confirm that this is a political move and nothing else.

4

Valkyrie5984 t1_iwvmzls wrote

I friggin knew it! I read this headline and immediately was suspicious, having read up plenty over the years of this glorified cult and all of their gross racism, sexism, etc and other oppressive human rights abuses...i thought, there has gotta be an angle Im not seeing yet.

Yeah...these awful places need to be abolished.

1

XD332 t1_iwlra7a wrote

Imagine wanting to force people to do something they are uncomfortable doing and thinking you’re the good guy. People need to just live and let live. They can still do their thing while everyone else does theirs.

0

HowOffal t1_iwm240n wrote

Imagine forcing universities to admit female students.

Imagine forcing white business owners to serve black customers.

Or perhaps you could imagine that the civil rights progress we’ve made wouldn’t have happened if we hadn’t pushed people to do things they weren’t comfortable with.

3

[deleted] t1_iwjwymm wrote

[removed]

−6

HowOffal t1_iwjzgz2 wrote

Hi, thanks for calling me a bigot. Very kind. I didn’t call the Saints bigots, so I’m not sure why you decided to resort to name calling.

The reason I claim this isn’t actually progress is because the Church is making a calculated move in order to inhibit the actual progress that they fear, in the same way that “separate but equal” wasn’t truly progress but rather a concession that ultimately served to protect white supremacy.

I appreciate that you read this as a “you do you, we’ll do our thing, live and let live” sort of momentous leap forward for this religion. But as a religious studies scholar who works primarily in the field of Mormon Studies, I hold a different interpretation. We can disagree peacefully, and that is the basis of a democratic society.

9

Dameaus t1_iwk8npc wrote

or, you are bigoted against this church and are just trying to make what is CLEARLY progress, into something more sinister. if you were truly into studying this church, you would know that they dont refer to themselves as "mormon" or endorse referring to the church as the "mormon" church...... so you wouldnt refer to it as "mormon" studies eithers. anyone who refers to themself as a "scholar" can just fuuuuuuuuck oooooooff as far as im concerned. a little too full of yourself maybe.

−7

HowOffal t1_iwkamxt wrote

You are clearly not willing to have a discussion in good faith. How embarrassing for you.

For the past 200 years, the Saints have embraced and rejected and embraced and rejected the term Mormon; you might have noticed that I did not refer to them as Mormons. I am, however, in the field of Mormon Studies, which is the term used in academia, even by academics who are practicing Saints, because it refers to religious communities (including but not limited to the LDS) that follow the Book of Mormon. Your feelings about this are irrelevant. Here are some links to Mormon Studies programs, since you are so convinced that I’m wrong.

https://mormonstudies.as.virginia.edu https://mormon.utah.edu https://mormonstudies.cgu.edu

7

obscure_greenleaf t1_iwiyfll wrote

> In an unexpected move, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave its support Tuesday to a proposed federal law that would not only recognize all legal marriages but also codify ones between same-sex couples. > > The Utah-based faith’s doctrine “related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged,” according to a news release posted to the church’s website. “We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.” > > It seems a somewhat of a reversal for the church, which famously put its members and a lot of money behind California’s Proposition 8 in 2008 to oppose same-sex marriage before it was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court. > > Some perspectives apparently have changed. > > “We believe this approach is the way forward,” the release said. “As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding.” > > The church’s remarks come after the act’s sponsors added an amendment to the House-passed bill exempting religious organizations from providing “services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.” Neither could the act be used to alter the tax-exempt status of any organization. > > “For instance,” stated a one-page fact sheet provided by the office of Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., “a church, university, or other nonprofit’s eligibility for tax-exempt status…would not be affected by this legislation.” > > The amendment also specified that the measure did not extend to polygamous marriages. > > The Utah-based church’s position is in keeping with the so-called Utah Compromise, which protects LGBTQ individuals from housing and workplace discrimination while also safeguarding some religious rights. > > More recently, the church opposed the Equality Act, a 2019 attempt to codify LGBTQ protections into federal law, arguing that it provided “no protections for religious freedom.” > > This story will be updated.

88

endlessnotfriendless t1_iwj3iwf wrote

read this as LSD church and my interest in religion peaked for a second

38

Goragnak t1_iwj6ryl wrote

It's originally a sex cult that turned into one of the worlds wealthiest corporations.

10

endlessnotfriendless t1_iwj8dc6 wrote

sex cult sounds fun

2

Goragnak t1_iwjhre7 wrote

Historically speaking it was mostly old men marrying teen aged girls, sometimes it was the leader of the church marrying other men's wives while the husbands were away on religious missions.

5

endlessnotfriendless t1_iwji1zg wrote

well that’s fucking weird

7

Goragnak t1_iwjkx5c wrote

Yeah... The early leaders of the church even taught that there were essentially Quakers that lived on the moon and were exceptionally long lived.

6

Haploid-life t1_iwjh5ae wrote

It's a public relations stunt. They're bleeding members over this issue and they need a positive after the child rape articles. Oaks is surely frothing at the ass over this.

9

Acceptable-Peace-69 t1_iwiwwyn wrote

Still have some explaining to do about supporting prop 8 in California but it’s a start.

31

doodah221 t1_iwk69ic wrote

What about the blacks and the priesthood debacle that they never actually apologized for?

8

MrsApostate t1_iwli2pl wrote

Don't hold your breath on that. Their leaders are on record as saying they neither seek nor give apologies.

I see this as less of a "start" in the right direction for them, and more of a small defeat and tactical shift. They know they'll never stem the tide against gay marriage now, but this bill allows them to go on discriminating against gay people without fear of reprisals.

Never give the Mormon church credit for any change of heart. It's a multi-national real estate corporation with billions in investments. It doesn't have a heart to change, just a bottom line to protect.

1

your_moms_apron t1_iwiyvh3 wrote

Not going to say anything pro about the LDS, and I will say this - if the LDS will support it, the church leadership has recognized that this is a major issue for young people and it is a hill this demographic will die on.

Gen Z is gayer, browner/blacker, etc than any other generation before. Anyone looking to stay in power ought to recognize that fact. If they want anyone under the age of 50 in church/donating, they need to somewhat keep up with the times.

25

sweet-tea-13 t1_iwj4zq1 wrote

It was only approved after it was changed to include that religious organizations cannot lose tax exempt status for not accommodating LGBT people. Their own views on gay marriage remains unchanged and it is still not accepted between their members.

They don't care if gay marriage is legal as long as they can continue to legally discriminate against LGBT people without losing their tax exempt status.

14

your_moms_apron t1_iwj5zai wrote

Fair enough - frankly, I care more about lgbtq people having the same tax rights as straight married people, etc.

3

sweet-tea-13 t1_iwj6gbz wrote

Yes, if the end result is positive for non-members then that's a good thing. My point was just that the LDS church isn't doing this because they suddenly care about gay rights and shouldn't be praised as if they do.

5

your_moms_apron t1_iwj7sam wrote

Agreed. They can do whatever they want in their corner as long as others are afforded the same right to do as they choose in theirs.

2

Immelmaneuver t1_iwjkvu9 wrote

"Please stop looking into our massive and largely illegal fortune."

18

Jaxsdooropener t1_iwk2o2j wrote

Motherfuckers can't make us forget when that they donated $20,000,000 to support proposition 8.

11

APandChill t1_ixc7k6x wrote

Which is ridiculous. This is why ALL religions shouldn’t be exempt from taxation. I’m LDS and it pisses me off my money would go into politics.

1

Livliviathan t1_iwiyy3q wrote

I'm not buying it.

8

Dependent_Chair6104 t1_iwjwsci wrote

Not a trap or anything, just a calculated pivot. The doctrine within the church is the same, and gay couples still can’t be sealed. This bill is getting support because it carved out an exemption for religious institutions, so they won’t be able to lose tax-exempt status for not performing these marriages. That’s preferable to the church over a theoretical bill that did not have said carve out, which would cause major problems for the church.

That being said, it’s still good that they’ve gone from supporting legislation to ban gay marriage (prop 8 in California) to supporting legislations that protects it, so regardless of the church’s motivations, I still see it as a positive.

3

AlsoNotTheMamma t1_iwl2zc0 wrote

I'm late to this post, but I'd like to raise a few points. Disclaimer, I'm a member, but am not a representative of the church.

​

  1. The church has not changed it's policy on families - it still teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is about recognising that people have rights that need to be respected regardless of whether those people agree with your or my beliefs.
  2. The church has not changed it's policy on tolerance or kindness. One of the articles of Faith the church was built on is that men have the right to worship God, or not worship God, as they wish according to the dictates of their own conscience. Another of those articles states that "we believe in being ... benevolent ... and in doing good to all men". The fact that vocal bigots both inside and outside the church have tried to push our message as something else doesn't change the fact that loving others, especially loving others who are different to you or unkind to you, has been taught at every annual and semi-annual conference I can remember for at least the last 60 years should be an indication that it is important to the church.
  3. Yes, the church has taken action in the past to protect itself legally. Prop 8 springs to mind, but there have been other examples of this. Why should the church act differently? It's actions have never been motivated by hate or intolerance, but a need to protect itself, and by extension it's members. Please also remember that while the organisation has never been motivated by hate, there are plenty of members of the church who are motivated by hate, bigotry and intolerance. They are not in the majority, and they do not represent the majority, and the church - as an organisation - has sent many messages trying to gently correct this attitude.
  4. Related to the above, the church and it's members have experienced more than their fair share of discrimination worldwide, both when the church was young and the Missouri Extermination Order made killing members of the church legal, but also in more recent times when discrimination in many forms was the norm. Mormons have been denied the right to adopt children, denied the right to identify as Christian, denied jobs, denied promotions, and mistreated in many other ways. The more bigoted members use this as ammunition to mistreat others. The majority use this as a reason to increase love, kindness and tolerance.
  5. The church teaches that Marriage is between a man and a woman, and that any sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin. The church teaches that not eating healthily and exercising is also a sin. It also teaches that not showing compassion in all things and at all times is a sin. This is church policy and doctrine, and should not be construed as homophobic or whatever the rest are. The church, as an organisation and from a doctrinal perspective, teaches that we are here to learn to be better, and that sin is an opportunity for learning and growth - we do not believe in hell as other religions do, and as such cannot possibly teach that people who do not believe as we do will go to hell. Vocal statements to the contrary by those opposed to the church or too stuck in their own bigotry to see their own shortcomings should not be seen as church policy or doctrine.
  6. It's ironic that so many accuse the church as a whole of bigotry and lack of tolerance, and express that criticism by being bigoted and intolerant.

I'd like to finish by pointing out that there is nothing wrong with holding an opinion or belief that disagrees with beliefs held by others. The only thing that I personally consider to be a seriously wrong belief is the belief that it is acceptable to treat those who disagree with you with unkindness and without respect. There are many in my church who do this, and I have issue with there behaviour. There are significantly more who do not do this - people who are kind, loving and decent. And they are representative of what the church is about.

If you're going to judge the church, don't judge it by it's weakest, least representative members. They are not the majority, they do not represent what we strive for, and they do not represent what we believe a person should be.

6

1_1x1_1 t1_iwlg0lx wrote

You know what would be uplifting news? The LDS church announcing that they will stop lobbying for clergy confidentiality to protect untrained men from making horrible decisions when it comes to protecting women and children from sexual assault.

Yes you read that right. The LDS church does not train their clergy (they’re volunteers) on dealing with sexual assault. They direct the leaders to call a hot line run by their law firm. All call records are deleted. The hot line then looks up whether they are required to report the incident to authorities or not. They essentially protect abusers so they can save face.

So instead of judging the church by the least of its members, let’s judge about how the corporation behaves.

3

AlsoNotTheMamma t1_iwlsdpm wrote

>You know what would be uplifting news? The LDS church announcing that they will stop lobbying for clergy confidentiality to protect untrained men from making horrible decisions when it comes to protecting women and children from sexual assault.

They have never lobbied for this. In fact, it was a member of the LDS clergy who recently proposed a change to the laws that allow this.

​

>Yes you read that right. The LDS church does not train their clergy (they’re volunteers) on dealing with sexual assault.

They do, but they could definitely get better training. FYI, the get training not only in protecting children, but also in teaching practices (google "Teaching - No Greater Call") and other areas specific to their calling. Leaders also have additional training at least once a quarter, usually more often.

​

>They direct the leaders to call a hot line run by their law firm.

As I understand it, the hotline is not run by their lawyers, but by legal and clinical professionals. This incident was escalated to a person giving purely legal advice.

​

>All call records are deleted. The hot line then looks up whether they are required to report the incident to authorities or not.

No, the people who answer the phone evaluate the situation and escalate to people providing legal or clinical support. In this instance, the legal advice was not that they weren't required to report it to authorities, but that they had a legal obligation not to report it to authorities.

​

>They essentially protect abusers so they can save face.

Actually, no. The lawyers (who took the call in this instance) evaluated the church's legal responsibility. In the recent case you are most likely referring to, the LAW created an expectation of privacy for the person who spoke to his Bishop. Because the law protected the abuser, had the Bishop reported the crime, he personally would have been liable for any ensuing lawsuits.

So that we are on the same page, the abuser spoke to the Bishop, not the victim, and the Bishop was told he was legally not allowed to report the abuse. The Bishop did, in every single meeting with the abuser, counsel him to hand himself over to the police.

Maybe the Bishop should have reported it in any case, but that could have ruined his family, and in any case, it's possible he wouldn't have been allowed to testify, making the entire thing pointless.

Had the lawyer said "Report it to the cops" the abuser would have been able to sue the Bishop AND the church, all with the same outcome where it's possible the Bishop's testimony would not have been allowed - while I couldn't find anything specific to Utah, New York State has affirmed that confessions made to a clergyman or other minister are privileged and cannot be used as evidence, and many states follow the same policy.

The LDS church does not have "confessionals" as such, and there is no sanctity of the confessional in our doctrine, at least not as it applies to criminal acts. The law that created this problem is more likely to have been used by religions that observe the "Priest-Penitent Privelege" doctrine. Regardless of whether Mormon Bishops want this exemption (none that I know do), it is the law, and there does not seem to have been a win for the Bishop here. As I recall, he did everything he could short of breaking the law to resolve the issue, and even breaking the law is unlikely to have solved the problem.

Shortly after this came to light, though, Phil Lyman, who currently represents district 73 in the Utah House of Representatives and is a member of the LDS "clergy", announced his desire to sponsor legislation to remove the clergy exemptions that allowed this to happen.

I have no idea about who Phil is, and this isn't an endorsement of him. But he does seem to want to change this, and he wouldn't if the church was in any way opposed to it.

For what it's worth, this isn't a law that protects only Mormon clergy, all clergy have the same exemptions and hence the same problems. Also, what would or could have happened had the Bishop gone to the police or gone public can be debated until we are blue in the face. The only FACT is that the law gave the abuser a reasonable expectation that what he said was confidential and could not be repeated, which is the problem that needs to be solved.

The Bishop who was at the centre of this problem was clearly unhappy with the instruction not to report it, and was clearly not keeping things quiet to protect the abuser.

​

>So instead of judging the church by the least of its members, let’s judge about how the corporation behaves.

Lets. In South Africa and Botswana, two countries I've served in, the Church's message for decades has been unequivocal - anyone who abuses a child in any material way faces internal discipline and criminal charges. I have friends who have told me they have received the same counsel in Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

The church's official position is that "abuse cannot be tolerated in any form", and that "individuals who ... abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfil family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God".

Additionally, the "Church Handbook of Instruction" has, since at least 1999 (The oldest copy I have) stated that "In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused, and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse.". If you can get an older copy (Handbook of Instruction 1999) check on page 157. Here is the current version of that manual. A lot of policy has been clarified or changed since then, but in this the church has been constant.

The problem here was not that the church was protecting abusers, although that is how it was reported, but rather that the hotline the Bishop called turned this into a legal matter, and the Bishop was given legal advice that offered legal protection but did not reflect the position of the Church officially or unofficially. The law in question also makes it appear that even had the Bishop gone to the police his testimony and evidence would not have been allowed and any action taken as a result of his report may have been seen as "Fruit of the poisonous tree" and not used, possibly even allowing the abuser to be tried and found not guilty of the offence. We, as leaders, have since received communications that clarify our responsibility. The legal advice was also incomplete - the hotline should have told the Bishop to speak to his Stake President, who should have been covered under the same exemptions.

It's really easy to attack the church. Getting the truth is a lot more difficult. While I understand your concerns, a lot of what your concerns are based on is misleading or wrong, and stories like this are often reported with extreme prejudice against the church, muddying the waters for everyone.

1

1_1x1_1 t1_iwmbsct wrote

Please read this article. It's from the AP news. https://apnews.com/article/sex-abuse-catholic-church-mormon-5d78129a2fe666159a22ce71323f6da3

I made no comment about the arizona case. Which you seem to think that abuse in the church is limited to a single case. It isn't, just read about the LDS church boy scout settlement. I've made comments about the LDS church as a system and not a single incident.

The AP News article describes the positions the LDS church as taken with HB90. It includes quotes from a written response received from the LDS organization describing confessions as "sacred." Pointing to a single congressman, or pointing to a single case doesn't help here.

Nor does pointing to the LDS stances on abuse. It's not helpful. Every company can produce a legal document on sexual harassment policies. It doesn't prevent it. It's their actions around how they handle it. That's how we can judge them.

Now you have produced some good examples of how they have handled it. And I have produced some examples of how they are currently advocating against mandatory reporting from clergy.

You'd think they'd defer to the best case scenario for the vicitms involved EVERYWHERE. But it's obvious that is not the case.

1

AlsoNotTheMamma t1_iwmv0zs wrote

>The AP News article describes the positions the LDS church as taken with HB90. It includes quotes from a written response received from the LDS organization describing confessions as "sacred." Pointing to a single congressman, or pointing to a single case doesn't help here.

HB90 did not only apply to sexual abuse, it would have compelled clergy to report any and all neglect and anything they reasonably believe could constitute abuse or neglect. It also compels the police to act on all reports.

So if a Bishop visits the home of a member who is sick / lost their job, and the kids have gone without food, or clothes, or seem neglected in any other way that is not due to deliberate abuse, the Bishop is not able to decide to get food and clothing for their kids and make sure the situation is fixed, he has to report it to the police, who are forced to investigate and report their findings to what ultimately becomes CPS, and there is the risk of the kids being removed from the home.

If a person comes to the Bishop and says "We need money for food, we haven't eaten in 2 days" the Bishop is forced to report neglect to the police.

In these cases, are people in need more or less likely to approach their Bishop when they have issues? Because it seems to me this is likely to make people less likely to try to get help, which will ultimately cause more harm to kids than good. More members approach their Bishops with welfare concerns than with all other abuse concerns.

​

>Nor does pointing to the LDS stances on abuse. It's not helpful. Every company can produce a legal document on sexual harassment policies. It doesn't prevent it. It's their actions around how they handle it. That's how we can judge them.

How did the Church handle the Arizona abuse case? What did the Bishop do? Do you know? The Arizona case is recent and that's why I'm referring to it.

  1. The man confessed to a single incident of abuse of one child in the past. This happened in 2011.
  2. It seems the legal advice given was because the Bishop had no evidence or belief that there was any ongoing abuse and, in the context of what the Bishop knew, there was no ongoing abuse to stop.
  3. He regularly counselled the man to get professional help for himself and the child.
  4. He encouraged the man's wife to get professional help for the man, for herself and for the child, and encouraged her to report the incident. She refused.
  5. The abuser rarely attended church before and after his confession, and resisted efforts by the Bishop to speak to him.
  6. The man was excommunicated from the Church (that is, he lost his membership) in 2014, less than 2 years after his confession. This may seem like a long time, but he had extremely limited interaction with the Bishop during this period and actively avoided him.
  7. It wasn't until 2017 (4 years later) that the church learned (from media reports) the extent of the abuse, and that it had been ongoing.

​

>Now you have produced some good examples of how they have handled it. And I have produced some examples of how they are currently advocating against mandatory reporting from clergy.

Lets draw a clear line between mandatory reporting of sexual and extreme physical abuse, and mandatory reporting of anything that could be construed as abuse or neglect, even if it is clear that reporting it is not in the interest of the child.

​

>You'd think they'd defer to the best case scenario for the vicitms involved EVERYWHERE. But it's obvious that is not the case.

Is it in the best interest of children suffering from unintentional or non-abusive neglect to have their situation reported to the police without any judgement calls being made as to whether there were better ways to deal with the situation?

Bishops deal with welfare issues tens of thousands of times more often than they deal with sexual or physical abuse cases. The proposed HB90 changes would have had unintended negative consequences for thousands more simple welfare victims who benefited from the welfare program than it would have helped the victims of sexual abuse.

Regarding "best case scenario for the victims" (I only became aware of this info when I was looking for HB90), the church hotline directs Bishops to ignore legal reporting requirements when a child is in imminent danger. The Hotline itself routinely reports cases of abuse to the authorities.

Things are seldom black and white, and the instances you have shown of the church resisting changes to the exemption clauses have included resisting changes that would have other, seemingly unintended, consequences.

It's also highly misleading to claim that the church does this to cover up abuse in the church or to avoid embarrassment. It acknowledges this happens, and has the long-established helpline as one tool to deal with it. It addresses it in training for all leaders who work with children. It happens, the church acknowledges it happens, there is no cover up. From reading media reports it's easy to be critical of the church's response, but at the same time many of the media reports I've read seem one-sided and more interested in making the church look bad than reporting the facts objectively.

3

[deleted] t1_iwkz93z wrote

[removed]

5

CamRoth t1_iwlmlyy wrote

It's cool to hate Christian churches on reddit. Especially the LDS church.

7

eighthourlunch t1_iwiz3qm wrote

Not uplifting and counts for nothing.

Blood. On. Their. Hands.

4

DanYHKim t1_iwj52c6 wrote

If the federal government will recognize all marriages, then this opens the door to recognizing polygamous marriages. Maybe that's the long game

4

Fun_in_Space t1_ixdgodq wrote

This branch of the LDS church doesn't do polygamous marriage anymore, though.

2

evmarshall t1_iwjet0w wrote

Taxes… they know they are on the wrong side of history but want to ensure that they can maintain their tax-exempt status if they don’t participate in ceremonies. It came down to money, of course.

3

hefe300 t1_iwl8wix wrote

Heavenly Father has changed his mind once again when earthly social factors dictate. How convenient.

3

1_1x1_1 t1_iwlf616 wrote

From the article:

The church’s remarks come after the act’s sponsors added an amendment to the House-passed bill exempting religious organizations, including faith-based universities, from providing “services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.” Neither could the act be used to alter the tax-exempt status of any organization.

They get to maintain their exclusionary practices. They are only supportive because they’re not having to get a bunch of lawsuits thrown their way.

3

mar4c t1_iwj516d wrote

Only because it contains language that allows them to discriminate in employment. They’re not supporting lgbt, they’re hedging bets.

2

[deleted] t1_iwlmrs2 wrote

[deleted]

0

mar4c t1_iwm6nb7 wrote

Yes they can discriminate on it and they do every fucking day by requiring temple recommends for jobs.

And good lord you truly don’t know what you’re taking about. My dad works for the church and makes six figures.

0

[deleted] t1_iwj5n86 wrote

[deleted]

2

Goragnak t1_iwjlxy6 wrote

Maybe, but it probably wouldn't be worth it to them anymore since the age of consent is 18 in Utah.

4

No_Biscotti_7110 t1_iwj5q6n wrote

Churches care about money first and foremost, they made the right call here but for the wrong reason

2

error201 t1_iwk6oeg wrote

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

2

Cheetahs_never_win t1_iwlmyyd wrote

That's nice.

Check their history. If they ever whispered anything like "donate to help us fight gay marriage" or "vote for x," clean their damn clocks.

I'm tired of churches involving themselves in my personal life.

2

AutoModerator t1_iwiu4d6 wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

VLenin2291 t1_iwj56z5 wrote

Character progression

1

Not_n_A-Hole_usually t1_iwjgwt7 wrote

Money. It always comes down to money. Their actuaries figured out they’d better step up now or face the music.

1

boiler95 t1_iwjlprq wrote

Are they trying an end around to legitimize polygamy?

1

Chemistryset8 t1_iwkxa4n wrote

What happened to just putting it in a box and CRUSHING IT?

1

Cacachuli t1_iwldmis wrote

They are crossing their fingers and hoping polygamy is next.

1

d4ng3r0u5 t1_iwlms37 wrote

Yeah, but how many at once?

1

RedditIsDogshit1 t1_iwlvz6t wrote

Lsd church sounds like nothing but a good thing. Let them be

1

InncnceDstryr t1_iwm3c35 wrote

Honestly seems to me that the objection to the law is mostly about their tax exempt status if they exercise the right to reject requests to officiate or facilitate ceremonies.

Nothing here tells me the Mormons are ok with gay marriage at all. Just with self-preservation.

1

Rude_Context6264 t1_iwn0mhl wrote

I’m glad to see society as a whole is progressing. A major religious organization pushing for religious freedom is a good thing for all, regardless of how I feel about this organization.

1

WarWeasle t1_iwj3f0g wrote

Wow! Wow... I really don't believe it. How in the Utah living Mormon religion can they do that? I love this. Just let us live our lives and not try to harm us?

Can churches even do that?

0

[deleted] t1_iwj598s wrote

[deleted]

0

WarWeasle t1_iwj5tig wrote

You mean they are supporting LGBT rights so they can marry several women? Interesting take.

1

Haploid-life t1_iwjf88o wrote

It's a public relations. They're bleeding members over this issue and they need a positive after the child rape articles. Oaks is surely frothing at the ass over this.

0

Haploid-life t1_iwjqs3k wrote

Hello Mormon down voter! Truth should bear scrutiny. Truth shouldn't be so fragile that it can't handle a direct gaze, so why do you insist that everyone disregard the truths of your church if it is actually true?

4

Atotallyrandomname t1_iwlgbn5 wrote

I wasn't seeing this coming at all... I guess since they've already got a caste system in place they're just attracting new members now.

0