Death of Tom Kimball

[_Philo Sofee]

I don't see bishop's interviews with kids going away any time soon regardless of what the bad apples do. The idea that one needs to include the church in periodic worthiness interviews is a source of the church's magic that members give it. So, the sooner kids get used to the idea the better. The members are supposedly broken and in constant need of having priesthood authority over them, guiding them through life. Supposedly change or repentance cannot happen unless a busy body neighbor gets involved under the cloak of the magical priesthood. And repentance is never really possible as the nebulous godly sorrow requirement and having to remain spotless for the rest of one's life guaranty failure. No, child interviews are there to stay.

I think this hits the nail directly on the head and sinks it deep into the 2x4.......

[_Kishkumen]

I don't see bishop's interviews with kids going away any time soon regardless of what the bad apples do. The idea that one needs to include the church in periodic worthiness interviews is a source of the church's magic that members give it. So, the sooner kids get used to the idea the better. The members are supposedly broken and in constant need of having priesthood authority over them, guiding them through life. Supposedly change or repentance cannot happen unless a busy body neighbor gets involved under the cloak of the magical priesthood. And repentance is never really possible as the nebulous godly sorrow requirement and having to remain spotless for the rest of one's life guaranty failure. No, child interviews are there to stay.

Yep. I agree. It is not going away anytime soon, but it should. Families should be able to handle everything up to the Melchizedek priesthood, the temple, and sealing. I see no reason for involving people outside of the family before that. The parents can answer for their kids up to the age of majority.

[_Stem]

I've participated on that MD&D thread and find it somewhat interesting. I do think it necessary for a critical perspective to be more thoughtful and observant than to declare something like "the Church its teaching and culture creates pedophiles" although I agree I doubt anyone with sense would say something like that seriously. I still think we need room to declare ideas but also learn to be honest about criticisms.

I should have stayed away from the Dehlin stuff. I still am not sure I see the usefulness to bring him into this. It sounds kind of like to me to be something akin to a faithful person's attempt to do exactly what the thread is complaining critics would do. Dehlin's offenses whatever they are or aren't don't qualify him as a predator, it seems to me. If I'm wrong, so be it. And ultimately it's not really my fight to get involved in defending him, particularly sinc an attempt to do so garners suspicion that I don't let women speak. I don't think Dehlin came out looking sparkling clean, but I also seem to recall he apologized and vowed to do better. He may not have sufficiently accepted responsibility for the accusations leveled against him and there may be some merit there, but again, still not the type of predatory behavior we're talking about. As I type that I realize its nutty it's delved into him at all.

Sounds to me Anne McMullin has a pretty personal grudge for Lindsay Hansen Park. What a mess that is.

[_Kishkumen]

Well, Stem, you are a good soul. I appreciate you visiting both boards to weigh in. Here's the thing: we can expect that LDS apologists of the Mopologetic variety will make the reactions of Post-Mormons and Ex-Mormons the focus of their own criticism when the key point here is that predators are using their church relationships to prey on kids. I would love to see people addressing that problem, not the "ex-Mormons are so mean to the LDS Church" problem. The latter really isn't the salient issue right now, is it? Is that what we want to do? Talk about how nasty ex- or post-Mormons are?

Evidently some Mopologists think so. From where I sit the fact that Tom Kimball lived as a predatory pedophile in the LDS Church with absolute impunity for roughly thirty years or more points to a big problem. But, yes, let's talk about the failure of the Post-Mormon community, the one that lacks children's programs and does not perform private chastity interviews with young people, to handle this Tom business appropriately. That makes a lot of sense. Talk about master-level diversionary tactics.

One thing that most all of us have in common is that we are or were members of the LDS Church, some of us for the many decades of our lives. But, sure, let's talk about how Post-Mormons are uniquely culpable, bad, or dealing with this in the wrong way as though we can separate the two groups out neatly. That works.

A good number of John Dehlin's fiercest critics are to be found where? Oh yes. The Post-Mormon community. The same one that is failing at all of these things and being so unfair to the LDS Church. It is Post-Mormons who have really stuck to the accusations against John Dehlin and pursued them. Not the LDS Church. It is many members of the Post-Mormon community that view Tom's decades of perpetration not only as an LDS Church problem but also as a failure of the Mormon Studies community.

Wait? What was that? Members of the Mormon Studies community recognize their own failures in this and we can't generalize about how all Post-Mormons just blame the LDS Church?

WOW! Mind blowing. It is almost as though that MD&D post either did not have a point, or its point was so poorly expressed and executed that it quickly descended into complete incoherence.

[_Meadowchik]

I've participated on that MD&D thread and find it somewhat interesting. I do think it necessary for a critical perspective to be more thoughtful and observant than to declare something like "the Church its teaching and culture creates pedophiles" although I agree I doubt anyone with sense would say something like that seriously. I still think we need room to declare ideas but also learn to be honest about criticisms.
...

Sounds to me Anne McMullin has a pretty personal grudge for Lindsay Hansen Park. What a mess that is.

Fortunately I don't think anyone advanced the claim there that the church "creates pedophiles." I know I did not.

As for McMullin, I hope she can refine her approach. I think that she and Matt Long have an excellent premise in their podcast What We Know. Identifying predators and learning how to enable them less is something we need to learn.
https://whatweknowpod.com/

[_Stem]

Hey Kish. You make good points, all very valid. I particularly like how you pointed out Tom's indiscretions were going on long before he left the Church. Its not easy to follow one's life and assign the causes.

I happen to maintain many relationships with members. I try to give them their due as much as possible. if not, I am nothing but boorish to them, it seems like. While I'd agree there is more important matters to get to when it comes to these problems of abuse, I don't have a problem accepting their are other auxiliary issues we can talk about too. If I personally intend to be open and honest in conversation and relationship I should be very quick to accept and even point out the weaknesses of my position and this kind of goes along with that since we tend to force each other or see each other into camps. In truth I don't know how valid Juliann's point is if we're specifying the women who she seems most focused on. I don't know their take nor have I followed them. But its fair and I accept there are over-reactions, there are tenuous accusations and conclusions.

Participating over there helps me get more of a feel for what members around me are thinking too. Over at MD&D they tend to say things that members don't say in person. So it helps.

[_Stem]

I've participated on that MD&D thread and find it somewhat interesting. I do think it necessary for a critical perspective to be more thoughtful and observant than to declare something like "the Church its teaching and culture creates pedophiles" although I agree I doubt anyone with sense would say something like that seriously. I still think we need room to declare ideas but also learn to be honest about criticisms.
...

Sounds to me Anne McMullin has a pretty personal grudge for Lindsay Hansen Park. What a mess that is.

Fortunately I don't think anyone advanced the claim there that the church "creates pedophiles." I know I did not.

As for McMullin, I hope she can refine her approach. I think that she and Matt Long have an excellent premise in their podcast What We Know. Identifying predators and learning how to enable them less is something we need to learn.
https://whatweknowpod.com/

I don't think so either. I don't know specifically who Juliann has in mind. She's just vaguely grouped people and I imagine someone or other presents some problematic ideas and criticisms.

I didn't know anything about McMullin but I wasn't fond of the two pieces I read from here, even though she did make some really good points. I might check out the podcast at some point.

[_Kishkumen]

Fortunately I don't think anyone advanced the claim there that the church "creates pedophiles." I know I did not.

There are always going to be the few that unreasonably place the whole blame on the LDS Church for this or that evil. That really doesn't work. Moreover, it doesn't persuade anyone to make changes. A better approach is to say that there is a problem and then ask what practical steps might be taken to reduce the risk and the harm. Unfortunately, this will not prevent certain apologists from focusing on the cranks who want to place all the blame on the Church. It is more convenient for them, and, well, they would much rather demonize Ex-Mos than do the hard work of protecting LDS children from harm.

As for McMullin, I hope she can refine her approach. I think that she and Matt Long have an excellent premise in their podcast What We Know. Identifying predators and learning how to enable them less is something we need to learn.[https://whatweknowpod.com/

Honestly, I think some of this is resentment for not having Lindsay's audience. Rosebud continues to have these axes to grind. I am not eager to continue to give Rosebud more of my attention. Her way of dealing with her negative experience with John suggests to me that she is carrying too much baggage to be the ideal advocate for victims. Her intensity is practically bonkers level.

I mean, look, she can't stop attacking Dehlin even in this project. Dear me.

I do find it humorous that juliann and Calm are running to Rosebud's defense though. LOL.

[_Kishkumen]

Hey Kish. You make good points, all very valid. I particularly like how you pointed out Tom's indiscretions were going on long before he left the Church. Its not easy to follow one's life and assign the causes.

I happen to maintain many relationships with members. I try to give them their due as much as possible. if not, I am nothing but boorish to them, it seems like. While I'd agree there is more important matters to get to when it comes to these problems of abuse, I don't have a problem accepting their are other auxiliary issues we can talk about too. If I personally intend to be open and honest in conversation and relationship I should be very quick to accept and even point out the weaknesses of my position and this kind of goes along with that since we tend to force each other or see each other into camps. In truth I don't know how valid Juliann's point is if we're specifying the women who she seems most focused on. I don't know their take nor have I followed them. But its fair and I accept there are over-reactions, there are tenuous accusations and conclusions.

Participating over there helps me get more of a feel for what members around me are thinking too. Over at MD&D they tend to say things that members don't say in person. So it helps.

That’s cool, Stem. I respect what you are doing. Mopologists are looking for enemies and focusing on the most unreasonable people. That’s what I expect. On the other hand, the different ways the dynamics are working in the MD&D conversation because the issue is gender and a number of the apologists are both male and politically conservative is interesting.

There are plenty of places I can go to hear what members think. And there are plenty of members who are a lot cooler and more chill than the apologetic crowd in attack mode. Honestly the bug they have up their butts is really funny. juliann is one of the most unpleasant people I have ever observed online. I hope she comes across a lot better in person.

[_moksha]

I do find it humorous that Juliann and Calm are running to Rosebud's defense though. LOL.

Sort of like "If Caligula beats up on Bambi then he is a friend of mine".