Another report of the church abusing the abused.

[LDS Watchman]

The Atticus account was not banned. I have had several aliases on the forum over the years and they have now all been merged under one account. The Creator was kind enough to do that, per my request.

I have a blog called LDS Watchman, which is where the name comes from. I chose the name because I'm watching for what is coming next, namely the setting in order of the church and the establishment of Zion, along with the coming tribulation and destruction.

That's it.

I probably won't be posting here as much anymore. I'm kind of done with all the anti-mormon haters and fake news. But I may still chime in from time to time.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I probably won't be posting here as much anymore. I'm kind of done with all the anti-mormon haters and fake news. But I may still chime in from time to time.

I've always found it interesting how "anti-Mormon" on the forum usually doesn't equate to "anti-Christian." That is unless you believe everything the LDS church leaders teach is from Christ and that they speak for Him. They do make this claim btw. "When Nelson speaks, he speaks for the Lord." (I'm sure I didn't get that quote right, but the intent is accurate.)

[Reluctant Watchman]

LDS Watchman, what's the URL to your blog? I'm curious about what themes/topics you cover.

[Atrasado]

The Atticus account was not banned. I have had several aliases on the forum over the years and they have now all been merged under one account. The Creator was kind enough to do that, per my request.

I have a blog called LDS Watchman, which is where the name comes from. I chose the name because I'm watching for what is coming next, namely the setting in order of the church and the establishment of Zion, along with the coming tribulation and destruction.

That's it.

I probably won't be posting here as much anymore. I'm kind of done with all the anti-mormon haters and fake news. But I may still chime in from time to time.

I'm so confused. I just read your description on your blog and you sound just like me. But then you argue with us about things that would seem obvious to someone who knows what you know. Why?

[Reluctant Watchman]

This be you LDSW? https://ldswatchman.wordpress.com/

[LDS Watchman]

I probably won't be posting here as much anymore. I'm kind of done with all the anti-mormon haters and fake news. But I may still chime in from time to time.

I've always found it interesting how "anti-Mormon" on the forum usually doesn't equate to "anti-Christian." That is unless you believe everything the LDS church leaders teach is from Christ and that they speak for Him. They do make this claim btw. "When Nelson speaks, he speaks for the Lord." (I'm sure I didn't get that quote right, but the intent is accurate.)

If your against Christ's true church and rail against it and the teachings of the restored gospel night and day, then you are most definitely not on Christ's side. It doesn't matter whether you think you are or not.

And it's no a matter of believing that "everything the LDS church leaders teach is from Christ" or not. There are varying shades of gray. There always have been and always will be. As long as people are human and flawed, there will be mistakes. The faults of men doesn't justify being an enemy of the Lord's church and railing against it night and day.

But you do you.

[Reluctant Watchman]

If your against Christ's true church and rail against it and the teachings of the restored gospel night and day, then you are most definitely not on Christ's side. It doesn't matter whether you think you are or not.

And it's no a matter of believing that "everything the LDS church leaders teach is from Christ" or not. There are varying shades of gray. There always have been and always will be. As long as people are human and flawed, there will be mistakes. The faults of men doesn't justify being an enemy of the Lord's church and railing against it night and day.

But you do you.

So I guess the LDS church has much more in common with "50 shades of gray." Who'da thunk?

Why aren't you going to point us to your blog?

Oh, and I don't "rail" against the church "night and day." You see what you want to see.

[LDS Watchman]

The Atticus account was not banned. I have had several aliases on the forum over the years and they have now all been merged under one account. The Creator was kind enough to do that, per my request.

I have a blog called LDS Watchman, which is where the name comes from. I chose the name because I'm watching for what is coming next, namely the setting in order of the church and the establishment of Zion, along with the coming tribulation and destruction.

That's it.

I probably won't be posting here as much anymore. I'm kind of done with all the anti-mormon haters and fake news. But I may still chime in from time to time.

I'm so confused. I just read your description on your blog and you sound just like me. But then you argue with us about things that would seem obvious to someone who knows what you know. Why?

Unlike many of you, I'm no longer bitter or angry at the church. I recognize that all is not well, but I also recognize that it's still the Lord's one true church and that the keys remain intact and that it's still the vehicle the Lord uses to administer the ordinances of salvation and proclaim his gospel. Which is why I defend the church against the many false accusations that are endlessly hurled at it on this forum.

[LDS Watchman]

If your against Christ's true church and rail against it and the teachings of the restored gospel night and day, then you are most definitely not on Christ's side. It doesn't matter whether you think you are or not.

And it's no a matter of believing that "everything the LDS church leaders teach is from Christ" or not. There are varying shades of gray. There always have been and always will be. As long as people are human and flawed, there will be mistakes. The faults of men doesn't justify being an enemy of the Lord's church and railing against it night and day.

But you do you.

So I guess the LDS church has much more in common with "50 shades of gray." Who'da thunk?

Why aren't you going to point us to your blog?

Oh, and I don't "rail" against the church "night and day." You see what you want to see.

You absolutely rail against the church night and day. Your actions are plain for all to see.

I get it, you're angry and confused right now. Which is why you're lashing out against the church and anyone who defends it. I've been there. I hope someday you'll get past this point and see that things aren't nearly as bad as you think.

[LDS Watchman]

This be you LDSW? https://ldswatchman.wordpress.com/

That's it.

[JuneBug12000]

The Atticus account was not banned. I have had several aliases on the forum over the years and they have now all been merged under one account. The Creator was kind enough to do that, per my request.

I have a blog called LDS Watchman, which is where the name comes from. I chose the name because I'm watching for what is coming next, namely the setting in order of the church and the establishment of Zion, along with the coming tribulation and destruction.

That's it.

I probably won't be posting here as much anymore. I'm kind of done with all the anti-mormon haters and fake news. But I may still chime in from time to time.

I am curious as to your other aliases. Since I have both agreed and disagreed with the two you have shared, I am curious about where we actually overlap.

[LDS Watchman]

The Atticus account was not banned. I have had several aliases on the forum over the years and they have now all been merged under one account. The Creator was kind enough to do that, per my request.

I have a blog called LDS Watchman, which is where the name comes from. I chose the name because I'm watching for what is coming next, namely the setting in order of the church and the establishment of Zion, along with the coming tribulation and destruction.

That's it.

I probably won't be posting here as much anymore. I'm kind of done with all the anti-mormon haters and fake news. But I may still chime in from time to time.

I am curious as to your other aliases. Since I have both agreed and disagreed with the two you have shared, I am curious about where we actually overlap.

What do you want to know?

[Reluctant Watchman]

You absolutely rail against the church night and day. Your actions are plain for all to see.

I get it, you're angry and confused right now. Which is why you're lashing out against the church and anyone who defends it. I've been there. I hope someday you'll get past this point and see that things aren't nearly as bad as you think.

It is true that I'm not happy with the "thoughtless stupor" of LDS church leaders. And no, I'm not confused. I'm actually quite elated the LDS church leaders decided to show their cards and who they worship.

And TBH, I think things are probably a lot worse than I actually think. I've been trying to explain away that church leaders are simply ignorant. I fear they are anything but ignorant. They are willing participants in evil designs with an extra dash of pride.

[LDS Watchman]

You absolutely rail against the church night and day. Your actions are plain for all to see.

I get it, you're angry and confused right now. Which is why you're lashing out against the church and anyone who defends it. I've been there. I hope someday you'll get past this point and see that things aren't nearly as bad as you think.

It is true that I'm not happy with the "thoughtless stupor" of LDS church leaders. And no, I'm not confused. I'm actually quite elated the LDS church leaders decided to show their cards and who they worship.

And TBH, I think things are probably a lot worse than I actually think. I've been trying to explain away that church leaders are simply ignorant. I fear they are anything but ignorant. They are willing participants in evil designs with an extra dash of pride.

I'm sure you don't think you're confused right now, but you are. Someday you'll recognize that. I hope sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, I would encourage you to switching your focus from constantly attacking the church and its leaders to something more productive. There are lots of other more meaningful things you could focus on.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I'm sure you don't think you're confused right now, but you are. Someday you'll recognize that. I hope sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, I would encourage you to switching your focus from constantly attacking the church and its leaders to something more productive. There are lots of other more meaningful things you could focus on.

One of the main reasons I stopped interacting w/ you on the forum is because you constantly make accusations and assumptions, putting words in my mouth.

If you read any of my essays, you'll notice a common theme. I cite a church doctrine or practice and then compare that with the words of prophets or the Lord in the scriptures. It is my intention to find truth. I don't care about what a church leader supposedly says.

Anyway. I think this has been enough chatting w you. I doubt I'll respond to you much in the future. (Oh, sorry, that was my virtue signaling coming out there. I'll have to work on that.) Take care, Atticus.

[LDS Watchman]

I'm sure you don't think you're confused right now, but you are. Someday you'll recognize that. I hope sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, I would encourage you to switching your focus from constantly attacking the church and its leaders to something more productive. There are lots of other more meaningful things you could focus on.

One of the main reasons I stopped interacting w/ you on the forum is because you constantly make accusations and assumptions, putting words in my mouth.

If you read any of my essays, you'll notice a common theme. I cite a church doctrine or practice and then compare that with the words of prophets or the Lord in the scriptures. It is my intention to find truth. I don't care about what a church leader supposedly says.

Anyway. I think this has been enough chatting w you. I doubt I'll respond to you much in the future. (Oh, sorry, that was my virtue signaling coming out there. I'll have to work on that.) Take care, Atticus.

What I said was neither an assumption nor an accusation. And it certainly wasn't putting words in your mouth.

You say it's your intention to find truth, but then get defensive when someone tells you the truth and gives it to you straight.

But like I said, you do you.

[Luke]

The Atticus account was not banned. I have had several aliases on the forum over the years and they have now all been merged under one account. The Creator was kind enough to do that, per my request.

I have a blog called LDS Watchman, which is where the name comes from. I chose the name because I'm watching for what is coming next, namely the setting in order of the church and the establishment of Zion, along with the coming tribulation and destruction.

That's it.

I probably won't be posting here as much anymore. I'm kind of done with all the anti-mormon haters and fake news. But I may still chime in from time to time.

Makes sense.

Also you’ll never leave lmao. It’s impossible to leave the forum

[LDS Watchman]

The Atticus account was not banned. I have had several aliases on the forum over the years and they have now all been merged under one account. The Creator was kind enough to do that, per my request.

I have a blog called LDS Watchman, which is where the name comes from. I chose the name because I'm watching for what is coming next, namely the setting in order of the church and the establishment of Zion, along with the coming tribulation and destruction.

That's it.

I probably won't be posting here as much anymore. I'm kind of done with all the anti-mormon haters and fake news. But I may still chime in from time to time.

Makes sense.

Also you’ll never leave lmao. It’s impossible to leave the forum

Who knows, maybe one day I'll finally break free for good.

[onefour1]

My take on this thread is that if you experience sex abuse by a member of the church, your first line of action should not be to run to the bishop about it. It is a crime and you should first and foremost report it to the police. All evidence should be collected by the proper authorities who investigate a crime. If afterwards you feel the need to share your experience with the bishop, it should be done after the investigation comes to an end.

The woman's testimony has her first and foremost running to the church. At least this is what I have gathered from my readings. If the allegations are true, then she certainly made a mistake by taking it to the church first. if the person she was abused by was in her ward or a direct leader over her she or her parent should certainly know the person's name and be able to report it to the police. At 7 years old it seems that it would be a primary teacher or someone in the primary program. If this had been first taken to the police, a threat by the church after going to the police and having it investigated would mean little. Justice could be better served by first taking it to the police and not the church. However, when taking it to the public, one should probably think it over very carefully whether to ever take it to the church. By doing this the church would never get wind of the issue until charges are brought and the story is already released to the public. That would eliminate most of the drama with the church if the church is trying to downplay true accusations to save image.

But, the way this was all presented in this forum leads one to question whether to story is true or not. No named perpetrator, no named ward, no full disclosure of the church letter, no police evidence, just no hard evidence to be able to condemn the church. The church and the perpetrator would have a legal right of innocence until proven guilty. If the public is also to believe that the church is guilty, they too would need hard evidence to convince them of the accusation. When I took read the evidence presented in this post, it is not convincing and leads me also to question the motive of the post in posting an accusation without any evidence to back it up.

I must say that the story does bring about a caution to not allow your children to ever be alone with adult or adolescent people you cannot fully trust. It also brings about the caution that if the church is to have an interest in how it affects its reputation, it is best to first take it to the proper authorities and maybe even the press before involving the church.

[JuneBug12000]

The Atticus account was not banned. I have had several aliases on the forum over the years and they have now all been merged under one account. The Creator was kind enough to do that, per my request.

I have a blog called LDS Watchman, which is where the name comes from. I chose the name because I'm watching for what is coming next, namely the setting in order of the church and the establishment of Zion, along with the coming tribulation and destruction.

That's it.

I probably won't be posting here as much anymore. I'm kind of done with all the anti-mormon haters and fake news. But I may still chime in from time to time.

I am curious as to your other aliases. Since I have both agreed and disagreed with the two you have shared, I am curious about where we actually overlap.

What do you want to know?

Please don't be offended and read the whole post. I am going to be strictly honest.

I would like to know the aliases because this is interesting to me that your Atticus personality was belligerent and rude and hardly worth reading since it seemed easy to see what your response would be: defend the church no matter what.

But I have sometimes found common ground with your LDS Watchman personality and even enjoyed your posts. You seem more measured in your response to what is right and wrong with the church. I would not have guessed you the same person.

So, now I am curious to know your other aliases and see where they land.

Is it just a matter of changing opinion over time or you giving each side of the argument their own persona to work out what you really believe?

[LDS Watchman]

I would like to know the aliases because this is interesting to me that your Atticus personality was belligerent and rude and hardly worth reading since it seemed easy to see what your response would be: defend the church no matter what.

No offense JuneBug12000, but this is a mischaracterization of me. I was generally civil and respectful, but firm and unwavering in my position. People didn't like that and lashed out, at which point things sometimes got heated on both sides. I also never defended the church no matter what. But I did push back pretty hard against false accusations against the church and its leaders. I defended the church as being the Lord's one true church upon the earth, but I always acknowledged that there are problems and that all is not well in Zion.

If I seemed rude and belligerent to you, it's because I was constantly being mocked and attacked by those who are angry with the church and anyone who defends it. I will also freely admit that I can sometimes be a little fiery and aggressive, especially when I'm being mocked or insulted. It's something I need to work on.

But I have sometimes found common ground with your LDS Watchman personality and even enjoyed your posts. You seem more measured in your response to what is right and wrong with the church. I would not have guessed you the same person.

So, now I am curious to know your other aliases and see where they land.

Matthias and Logan were my other aliases.

Is it just a matter of changing opinion over time or you giving each side of the argument their own persona to work out what you really believe?

A little bit of both, but mostly changing my opinion over time. As Atticus, I tended to defend the church more vigorously and play devils advocate. But ultimately my views have evolved a lot since I first came on the forum.

When I first came on the forum I was angry at the church and had one foot out the door, like many here. As time went on and I studied things out more, I have pretty much made my peace with our current situation. I am a firm believer that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, warts and all, is still the Lord's one true church upon the earth and his vehicle for administering the ordinances of salvation and preaching his everlasting gospel to the ends of the earth.

It is however seriously out of order in many ways and will need to be set in order before Zion will be established.

Hope this helps.

[LDS Watchman]

My take on this thread is that if you experience sex abuse by a member of the church, your first line of action should not be to run to the bishop about it. It is a crime and you should first and foremost report it to the police. All evidence should be collected by the proper authorities who investigate a crime. If afterwards you feel the need to share your experience with the bishop, it should be done after the investigation comes to an end.

The woman's testimony has her first and foremost running to the church. At least this is what I have gathered from my readings. If the allegations are true, then she certainly made a mistake by taking it to the church first. if the person she was abused by was in her ward or a direct leader over her she or her parent should certainly know the person's name and be able to report it to the police. At 7 years old it seems that it would be a primary teacher or someone in the primary program. If this had been first taken to the police, a threat by the church after going to the police and having it investigated would mean little. Justice could be better served by first taking it to the police and not the church. However, when taking it to the public, one should probably think it over very carefully whether to ever take it to the church. By doing this the church would never get wind of the issue until charges are brought and the story is already released to the public. That would eliminate most of the drama with the church if the church is trying to downplay true accusations to save image.

But, the way this was all presented in this forum leads one to question whether to story is true or not. No named perpetrator, no named ward, no full disclosure of the church letter, no police evidence, just no hard evidence to be able to condemn the church. The church and the perpetrator would have a legal right of innocence until proven guilty. If the public is also to believe that the church is guilty, they too would need hard evidence to convince them of the accusation. When I took read the evidence presented in this post, it is not convincing and leads me also to question the motive of the post in posting an accusation without any evidence to back it up.

I must say that the story does bring about a caution to not allow your children to ever be alone with adult or adolescent people you cannot fully trust. It also brings about the caution that if the church is to have an interest in how it affects its reputation, it is best to first take it to the proper authorities and maybe even the press before involving the church.

I suspect that there's probably some truth to her story. Sexual abuse is unfortunately something that has been a problem in the church for a long time and the church has often dropped the ball in protecting the innocent to varying degrees. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if she was abused and local church leaders didn't do enough to protect and help her.

However, IF there is any truth to her story, it sounds like she is seriously embellishing what happened. Her tale doesn't add up to me.