Posted by:
jonathantech
(
)
Date: August 23, 2013 12:18PM
And more
-------------------
Uncle M : No read again.. I did not say you were a son of perdition, I said it puts you in the short line for it, but not actual are.. I've only questioned your motives and your lack of real conviction. But you don't believe in a "son of perdition" anyways so why so upset? I love you Jonathan, your my first nephew.. I was so proud to be an uncle at age 8. I don't read the articles because they are very old news. Nothing of value I found in them ages ago when I read them by different authors. Your problem is you believe all your problems came from everybody but yourself.
----
Jonathan Ross : I'm referring to
http://mormonthink.com/personalstories/A_Letter_to_a_CES_Director.pdf ("Letter to CES Director") , which is not old news, it's dated April 2013
----
Jonathan Ross And this
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fexmormon.org%2Fd6%2Fdrupal%2FLetter-to-Elder-Holland-Book-of-Mormon&h=SAQFPBaY7("My letter to Elder Holland re Book of Mormon (very long) | Recovery from Mormonism")
----
Jonathan Ross : And if I said you were spiritually worse than a murderer, wouldn't you be offended. Wouldn't you take that as an insult? Belief has nothing to do with my offense of your statement, merely association with people who have committed murder or rape. I know it's doctrinal to you, but that doesn't make it any less offensive to say.
----
SL : Jonathan, You posted earlier that what you wanted to do was have an "intellectual conversation" about the church using "real facts". Unfortunately, you are not following those rules yourself. Posting one-off experiences like this are just completely ingenuous and not "real facts". Because the fact is 99% of church leaders are good men, doing their best and have absolutely no ill will towards the youth they lead. Frankly, it's offensive to someone like myself who has been in leadership positions in the church and has had the opportunity to interview and talk with youth one-on-one. My Father was a Bishop and I am yet to find a better more caring person in this world than that man. I know you understand these are one-off situations, but constantly posting and harping on a few one-off experiences that people have had gives off the impression to non LDS folks that somehow these leaders don't have the kids best intentions in mind, which I think if you were being "intellectually honest" with yourself you would know that that idea couldn't be further from the truth.
----
Jonathan Ross : I was requesting that about doctrinal and historical discussions. I don't see how this is non-factual, it is a personal account of something that really happened. I am promoting educating parents of opportunities for abuse. I very much believe that these subjects shouldn't be approached in any sort of detail by bishops and parents need to know what could happen if they don't insist on being present for ALL of their childrens interviews. We've seen bad stuff happen in the Catholic church with it's priests, why is it impossible for that to happen in the LDS church, especially when the excuse for misdeeds is always "They are just imperfect men". There are currently 29,014 congregations in the church, with that many people there are a lot of opportunities to have bad apples.
----
SL : Nobody is denying the fact that with a church as large as ours, there could be a few bad apples out there. But frankly Jonathan, there are way more instances of sexual abuse from family members or neighbors than there have ever been from LDS Bishops. Does that mean you should never let your kids visit their grandparents, uncles, cousins, etc. on the off chance they could get abused? The likelihood of Mormon youths being abused or treated improperly by their Bishops is so minuscule it's simply is not a worry for me. Of course it "could" happen, but I choose to not live my life in constant fear of what "could" happen. The "non-factual" part of this is the intellectually dishonest idea you are trying to perpetuate that church leaders are pedophiles that can't be trusted. I too don't think Bishops should ask a 12 year old girl about beastiality, but I am also positive that this is again a "one-off" situation that 99.9% of youth in the church will never experience talking to their Bishops. It is painfully obvious that Bishops do much, much more good than bad for youth during one-on-one interviews. So why deny youth that beautiful opportunity to get counsel that could bless and direct their lives for good because of a few bad apples?
----
S_C : Please explain, with intellectual honesty, how you have any stake in how the Church conducts youth interviews, when you have made it clear that you intend to deny your own children the ordinances that would require them to sit through such an interview. Is it not better for parents of children who could possibly be affected by this to decide what is best for their children?
You claim to not want to start a religious debate, yet have done nothing but go out of your way to smear the Church and its leaders. Could your own life choices stand up to the microscopic scrutiny that you are imposing on the Church and all its leaders? Could you say that, before you left the Church, your own adherence to its teachings was so unassailable that your failure to live up to them could not have played a role in your disaffection? Since you ceased to believe in them, have you been so true to your new principles, whatever they may be, that no man could find fault with you?