Study shows LDS Church participation increases risk to children from abusers

[MG 2.0]

Same answer as my previous post.

Regards,
MG

So your answer is Mormon God is both insane for letting children be molested by Mormon Bishops, and Mormon God is too impotent to do anything about it anyway. Bravo, good and faithful servant, bravo!

Aargh. You don't get it.

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

This is one of the pretzels of agency and the problem of evil.

It's ok for the agency of the victim to be violated in order for the agency of the monster to be preserved. Agency priority is always defaulted to the perpetrator of evil over the agency of the innocent.


*SA Trigger Warning*


When the infamous Arizona Bishop was told by the father that he was repeatedly raping his child, and had tried to rape his infant, at no point did the Bishop try to preserve the child's or baby's agency. At no point did he seek medical care and counseling for the child and baby. At no point did he seek for them to be protected from their father. No. It was all about preserving the agency of the monster, to hopefully make the choice to stop raping his child. His agency to continue raping had to be preserved above preserving the agency of others to choose to not be raped.

It's a vile worldview.

Agency does result in vile and monstrous behaviors. It always has and always will...until we have a perfect world where everyone does what is right all of the time without any exception.

I will make a comment on one thing you said. You postulated that "Agency priority is always defaulted to the perpetrator of evil over the agency of the innocent".

Not so. Agency just IS. There is no default one way or the other towards good or evil...unless one CHOOSES. I think your statement as faulty on its face and at its core. I would be interested in having you explain in greater detail why you think your default position that you have staked out IS the default.

Regards,
MG

Sounds a bit wistful of you there, MG 2.0. Maybe Lucifer's plan was the better one, so there would be that perfect world. By the way, how can a perfect Mormon God create imperfect children and suffer imperfections?

[sock puppet]

So your answer is Mormon God is both insane for letting children be molested by Mormon Bishops, and Mormon God is too impotent to do anything about it anyway. Bravo, good and faithful servant, bravo!

Aargh. You don't get it.

Regards,
MG

No, probably because I don't follow the ancient parts of my brain around like you do yours.

[MG 2.0]

By the way, how can a perfect Mormon God create imperfect children and suffer imperfections?

Been there done that. I while back I encouraged folks to stay away from "rehashing" old arguments and regurgitating the same thing over and over. This is one of those times.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I don't follow the ancient parts of my brain around like you do yours.

I don't follow. No worries. It's not worth the back and forth on this one.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor Steuss]

I will make a comment on one thing you said. You postulated that "Agency priority is always defaulted to the perpetrator of evil over the agency of the innocent".

Not so. Agency just IS. There is no default one way or the other towards good or evil...unless one CHOOSES. I think your statement as faulty on its face and at its core. I would be interested in having you explain in greater detail why you think your default position that you have staked out IS the default.

Regards,
MG

There absolutely is a default towards evil, when there is a victim. The victim isn't getting to preserve their own agency to not be violated. In fact, when it comes to the structure of the Church, they've already demonstrated (repeatedly) that they'll actively take steps to preserve the agency of someone engaging in evil over the agency of the victim.

When someone is murdered, their mortal agency is permanently terminated in order to preserve the agency of the murderer. This is a default toward the agency of the perpetrator of evil. Particularly when you supposedly have an omnipotent deity that has destroyed entire civilizations before to preserve the agency of a handful of righteous people.

[MG 2.0]

When someone is murdered, their mortal agency is permanently terminated in order to preserve the agency of the murderer.

Perfect example of what I've been saying. I don't know if you read what I said way back on page four of this thread.

Agency doesn't play favorites. It just is. No one is telling the murderer to murder. Unfortunately, in a world of cause and effect, the murderer is doing a great injustice to the victim. If the victim DID have any say in the matter OF COURSE they would refuse to be murdered.

Do you see where this is going? It almost becomes rather ludicrous to try and figure out all the in's and out's of the effects of a world in which agents are acting and others are being acted upon. Lot's of moving parts.

And often, victims get the brunt end of another's choices for choosing evil. Any Bishop who participates in ANY behavior that has lasting hurt and trauma on an innocent victim should be condemned and punished.

Earlier I explained why this presents a conundrum of sorts. Troubles to the left, troubles to the right...no matter which path is chosen.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I will make a comment on one thing you said. You postulated that "Agency priority is always defaulted to the perpetrator of evil over the agency of the innocent".

Not so. Agency just IS. There is no default one way or the other towards good or evil...unless one CHOOSES. I think your statement as faulty on its face and at its core. I would be interested in having you explain in greater detail why you think your default position that you have staked out IS the default.

Regards,
MG

There absolutely is a default towards evil, when there is a victim. The victim isn't getting to preserve their own agency to not be violated. In fact, when it comes to the structure of the Church, they've already demonstrated (repeatedly) that they'll actively take steps to preserve the agency of someone engaging in evil over the agency of the victim.

It is a hard thing, this agency thing. Especially when in the lion's share of Bishop's interviews so much good is the result. Goal setting for improvement and becoming more like the Savior, repentance and confession of wrong doing, testimony bearing with the result of faith being increased, etc.

Confessions are a sacred act between the Bishop and a young person. The young person is trusting that the Bishop will help them steer the course towards greater righteousness and well being. Most of the time this is what happens.

When it goes sideways, that is horrendous. As I said earlier, it is a good thing for parents to have the option nowadays of being in the room during a youth interview. Down side? Like I said, what if the parent is the abuser? Will the child say anything?

Troubles to the left, troubles to the right. The effects of agency.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

[In the past we] have an omnipotent deity that has destroyed entire civilizations before to preserve the agency of a handful of righteous people.

Different time. Different place. And...we don't have the full story. There are some storytellers/myth telling between then and now.

With biases, etc.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Same answer as my previous post.

Regards,
MG

So your answer is Mormon God is both insane for letting children be molested by Mormon Bishops, and Mormon God is too impotent to do anything about it anyway. Bravo, good and faithful servant, bravo!

So the dilemma for an apologist on this one is that either God is impotent and cannot intervene for some reason (where does that leave all those testimonies that claim God DID intervene to stop the rain for a temple groundbreaking, or to bring that gnat back to life, or…etc?). Or God could intervene but chooses not to - which makes him complicit in the abuse.

The fact remains. Involving your children in organised religion, including the Mormon Church, increases the chances of them being abused. Join the church and put your kids at elevated risk - great missionary message.