ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/gdm/archive/v02.n016

Internet Message Format | 1999-11-21 | 54KB

From: [e-mail] (gdm-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: gdm-digest V2 #16
Reply-To: gdm-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


gdm-digest          Monday, November 22 1999          Volume 02 : Number 016




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:53:15 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Thought provoking letter to the editor.

From the Salt Lake Tribune.

Road to Exaltation?

Friday, November 12, 1999


Recent letters to The Tribune have fairly well lambasted the plural
marriage communities. Some writers appear to have an almost automatic and
gut level reaction of hatred for the practice. This is not good.

John Eggertsen (Forum, Nov. 5) and Kevin Springer (Forum, Nov. 5) make
several assumptions that tread the thinnest of ice. One writes that no
Christian church recognizes plural marriage, even though those that
practice it claim to be Christian. Wrong. A religion, whether recognized
or not by government authority, is still a religion.

In fact, one that is not recognized cannot be faulted for claiming
religious persecution and taking their practices underground. They have
become their own sect of Mormonism that do not recognize the authority of
the church in Utah, just as Martin Luther did not recognize the church in
Rome or Smith the church as it existed prior to the founding of the LDS
variety.

Reading between the lines of these writers' letters, one senses they feel
that the practice of plural marriage is evil. The Mormon church has
certainly gone out of its way to help paint that picture, usually through
avoidance of the question. The truth of the matter is, if Mormon prophecy
is true, plural marriage is not only a fact, but eventually, all Mormons
will be required to enter into a plural marriage in order to obtain their
"Glory."

If we are to understand Joseph Smith Jr. properly, it will be required
here on Earth. Deal with it and have a forgiving nature. These people who
have been forced to hide may just be on the true and right path to eternal
glorification; it may be the rest of us who are apostate. There is no
protection in our millions of numbers if we are wrong about this.

J. MATTHEW PHIPPS Boise, Idaho


http://www.sltrib.com/1999/Nov/11121999/public_f/46341.htm


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 12:16:36 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> keys

Subject: Keys

http://www.lds.org/conference/O1999en/O1999en_4_2_Balla.html


Elder M. Russell Ballard
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers

Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God's true
prophets.

"Yesterday, members of the Church sustained the First Presidency and
members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and
revelators, with Gordon B. Hinckley also being sustained as President of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He, and only he, holds
and exercises in their fullness all of the keys of God's kingdom on earth.
How grateful we all are to know and to sustain President Hinckley."

- ---------------------

[Commentary:  My understanding it that the President of the church holds
the key to the resurrection, but does not exercise them, i.e. when asked
why our prophet does not raise the dead as did the ancients, and
missionaries would replay that he had the keys but did not exercise them
at this time.

Also I have been told multiple times by religions professors etc, that the
President of the church still holds the keys to plural marriage, but has
been directed by God to not exercise them now because it would be breaking
the laws of man.

While the old statement that the President of the church, holds all the
keys, has been repeated many many times, I don't remember the added phrase
"and exercises in their fullness all of the keys of God's kingdom on
earth.", ever being used before.

Apparently Brother Ballard had not read of thought much about pervious
statements by pervious Presidents concerning holding the keys to plural
marriage but not "exercising" them.   Consider the following.]

- ------------------------

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

"I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the
present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him
fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which
has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and
that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his
declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding."

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

(The Manifesto, refer to the back of any modern LDS D&C)

- -------------------
Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the
Manifesto

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of
this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in
the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out
of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the
children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

(Sixty-first Semi-annual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October
6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October
11, 1890, p. 2.)

- ---------------------------------------

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter
into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to
come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as
kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they
refused to accept them.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19,
1866

- --------------------------------------

[This next quote is a little long, but to not take it out of context, I
include the entire long paragraph, look for the reference to keys and
compare it to what Elder Ballard said about President Hinkley "exercising"
all the keys.]


Now, in relation to the position that we occupy concerning plurality, or,
as it is termed, polygamy it differs from that of others. I have noticed
the usage of several nations regarding marriage; but, as I have said, we
are not indebted to any of them for our religion, nor for our ideas of
marriage, they came from God. Where did this commandment come from in
relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given
unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When
this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the
greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world
stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it,
"that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could
not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious,
and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if
they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of
opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom
would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women,
opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on
the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and
not interested in this Church and kingdom. It is so far, then, a religious
institution, that it affects my conscience and the consciences of all good
men--it is so far religious that it connects itself with time and with
eternity. What are the covenants we enter into, and why is it that Joseph
Smith said that unless this principle was entered into this kingdom could
not proceed? We ought to know the whys and the wherefores in relation to
these matters, and understand something about the principle enunciated.
These are simply words; we wish to know their signification.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.221, John Taylor, April. 7, 1866

- --------------------------------------

When the work of the Prophet Joseph Smith was completed, when he had
received the keys, powers, and ordinances, and had conferred them upon the
heads of the Quorum of the Twelve when he realized and sensed that the
time had come when he would give his life for his work, he seemed to
speak, upon occasion, more emphatically than ever before with regard to
the truth of the revelations which he received, indicating that there were
those within the Church then who opposed and did not accept all the
revelations which God had given through him. These were his words upon the
memorable occasion of one of his last addresses to the Saints.

"Oh! I beseech you go forward and make your calling and election sure --
when did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever
confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no
more seen. I never told you I was perfect -- but there is no error in the
revelations which I have taught."

(May 12, 1844. Andrew Jenson, The Historical Record, Vol. 7, p. 548. HC,
Vol.6, Ch.17, p.366)

Alvin R. Dyer, Conference Report, October 1959, p.23

- -------------------------------------

Concerning the Patriarchal Order of Marriage, President Taylor said: "If
we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned against us.
If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has kept, we
cannot go with Him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside
over those who keep a higher law." In harmony with the remarks of
President Taylor Elder Woodruff observed: "The reason why the Church and
Kingdom of God cannot advance without the Patriarchal Order of Marriage is
that it belongs to this dispensation just as baptism for the dead does, or
any law or ordinance that belongs to a dispensation. Without it the Church
cannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over stakes
will have to obey the law of Abraham, or they will have to resign."

(Matthias F. Cowley, Wilford Woodruff His Life and Labors, p.542.)

- --------------------------------------------


Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations
which do not exist in monogamy, and there are blessings attached to the
faithful observance of that law, if viewed only upon natural principles,
which must so far exceed those of monogamy, as the conditions
responsibilities and power of increase are greater. This is my view and
testimony in relation to this matter. I believe it is a doctrine that
should be taught and understood.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.30, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878


- --------------------------------------------


[If you don't think that keys and plural marriage are very closely tied,
then read this longer quote by Wilford Woodruff.]


As to President Young his labors have been with us. It has been remarked
sometimes, by certain individuals, that President Young has said in public
that he was not a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I have travelled with
him since 1833 or the spring of 1834; I have travelled a good many
thousand miles with him and have heard him preach a great many thousand
sermons; but I have never heard him make that remark in my life. He is a
prophet, I am a prophet, you are, and anybody is a prophet who has the
testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy. The Elders
of Israel are prophets. A prophet is not so great as an Apostle. Christ
has set in his Church, first, Apostles; they hold the keys of the kingdom
of God. Any man who has travelled with President Young knows he is a
prophet of God. He has foretold a great many things that have come to
pass. All the Saints who are well acquainted with him know that he is
governed and controlled by the power of God and the revelations of Jesus
Christ. His works are before the world; they are before the heavens;
before the earth; before the wicked as well as the righteous; and it is
the influence of President Young that the world is opposed to. This
Priesthood, these keys of the kingdom of God that have been sealed upon
him, the world is at war against; let them say what they may, these things
are what they are at enmity with. Their present objection to the
Latter-day Saints, they say, is plurality of wives. It is this principle
they are trying to raise a persecution against now. But how was it in
Missouri, Kirtland, Jackson county, Far West, Caldwell county, in all our
drivings and afflictions, before this principle was revealed to the
Church? Certainly it was not polygamy then. No, it was prophets, it was
revelation, it was the organization of an institution founded by
revelation from God. They did not believe in that, and that was the
objection in those days. If we were to do away with polygamy, it would
only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom.
Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with
revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our
religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all
would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build
up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and
we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus,
and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.165 - p.166, Wilford Woodruff, December
12, 1869

================================

[Again I repeat the statement of Brother Ballard, and try to do they
mental gymnastics to rationalize that somehow President Hinkley is
properly exercising the keys of plural marriage.  If the issue were simply
because it is against the law of the land, then were are the churches
efforts to get these religiously oppressive laws changed to allow
President Hinkley to TRULY "exercise" all the keys that brother Ballard
claims that he has.]

"Yesterday, members of the Church sustained the First Presidency and
members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and
revelators, with Gordon B. Hinckley also being sustained as President of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He, and only he, holds
and exercises in their fullness all of the keys of God's kingdom on earth.
How grateful we all are to know and to sustain President Hinckley."

Elder M. Russell Ballard Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers

http://www.lds.org/conference/O1999en/O1999en_4_2_Balla.html




Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:07:24 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Child sexual abuse

   BY SHEILA R. McCANN
 @ 1999, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

     As lawsuits filed by child sexual abuse victims against Catholic
 dioceses have grabbed headlines and reaped controversial
 multimillion-dollar awards, similar litigation against the Mormon Church
 has proceeded quietly, usually ending in confidential settlements.

     But a $750 million lawsuit set for trial next spring in West Virginia
 promises to shine a national spotlight on how The Church of Jesus Christ
 of Latter-day Saints responds to cases of child sexual abuse among its
 members.

     James Doe Jr., a divorced X-ray technician, was sexually abusing his
 5-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son in 1989. When the children told a
 baby sitter, Doe [a pseudonym used in court documents], feared exposure
 and confessed to New River Virginia stake president Blair Meldrum.

     Meldrum counseled Doe and believed he had repented -- and reformed.
 Meldrum did not report the abuse to state authorities, nor did he talk to
 or arrange counseling for the children.

     Five years later, Doe was arrested after he videotaped himself
 molesting the same children. He pleaded guilty to abusing them over
 several years and is serving a 185-year prison term. The daughter, now
15,
 and her mother have sued the LDS Church, charging years of abuse
inflicted
 on the girl could have been prevented had Meldrum acted to protect her.
 The trial had been scheduled for next week but was recently postponed
 until April.

     The Doe suit reflects the trend in litigation against the LDS Church.
 Rather than accusing its clergy of abuse, as has been the case in
 litigation against other faiths, more than 40 plaintiffs have alleged
 church officials knew of molestations or ignored warning signs and failed
 to alert either victim's families or authorities.

     Although the cases have rarely gone to trial, last year a Texas jury
 awarded $4 million to a boy molested at age 8 by LDS Church member
Charles
 Blome, who was a trusted baby sitter in the congregation. The child's
 attorney, Clay Dugas of Texas, argued church leaders had received
 complaints about Blome, who is now serving a prison sentence for his
 crime.

     Attorneys who have sued the LDS Church argue its lay clergy is
 insufficiently trained, and fails to heed accusations or evidence of
 pedophilia, especially in popular, well-liked church members. Eager to
 avoid embarrassing the church, this lay clergy also fails to realize a
 child molester will not stop without professional therapy, lawyers
allege.

     Instead, past litigation shows church leaders often focus on an
 offender's repentance, neglecting the needs of victims or leaving
children
 at risk, attorneys said.

     "Once they learn of it, they don't ever report the abuse" to
 authorities, charges South Carolina attorney Michael G. Sullivan, who
 represents the Doe daughter and mother. "Clearly, it puts blinders on
 where you focus solely on the pedophile. Victims are ignored."

     Adds Bellevue, Wash., attorney Timothy Kosnoff, who is suing the
 church on behalf of a boy molested in Oregon: "There's been this long
 historical tradition of separation from secular society and they want to
 do it their own way . . . They don't want to believe their fellow
 priesthood holder is a [child molester.]''

     Church representatives, in a lengthy interview with The Salt Lake
 Tribune, conceded the faith's community leaders occasionally have made
 mistakes in handling reports of child sexual abuse.

     But, they counter, the church has made dramatic changes since 1989,
 providing training to its clergy and a hot line for them to call, plus
 distributing educational pamphlets. These efforts, plus condemnations of
 child abuse by church leaders, virtually have eliminated lawsuits based
on
 handling of reports after the hot line's inception in 1995, said Von
 Keetch, a Salt Lake City attorney who represents the church.

     The hot line staff tells clergy to protect and arrange help for
 victims, and to ensure abuse is reported to authorities, said Harold
 Brown, director of LDS Family Services. Training emphasizes the need to
 refer abusers to treatment, he added.

     ''The church would never try to cure a true pedophile with
 repentance," Brown said.

     West Virginia Claims: The West Virginia lawsuit contends stake
 president Meldrum and others decided to respond to a pedophile with
 prayer, focusing on spiritually healing Doe while failing to help his
 molested children.

     But church attorneys explain in court filings: "President Meldrum
took
 [the father] at his word, believing that he truly intended to forsake his
 past conduct and gain repentance in the eyes of God." After 18 months,
 Meldrum decided Doe had "sufficiently repented," they said.

     But the lawsuit alleges the abuse continued until February 1994, when
 Doe videotaped himself sexually assaulting both children and forcing them
 to perform sexual acts with each other. The son told his former
 stepmother. She called the children's mother, serving in the military,
who
 called authorities. Police seized the tape and arrested Doe.

     Sullivan, the victim's lawyer, argues Meldrum should have obeyed West
 Virginia's child abuse reporting law. "The real issue is, in a civilized
 society, when you learn a child is being abused, can you do nothing?''
 asked Sullivan. "We think the answer will be a resounding no."

     With sufficient training or supervision, Meldrum would not have taken
 Doe "at his word," Sullivan added. Instead, Meldrum would have known
 pedophiles -- no matter how repentant -- minimize their sexual abuse of
 children and do not stop without therapy, he said.

     Keetch said Meldrum will testify Doe hid the scope of the abuse. "I
 believe President Meldrum honestly believed in his heart that those kids
 were not in any further danger from their father."

     A church Relief Society member later reported her suspicions the
 children were neglected and physically abused, Keetch notes. But
 investigations by child welfare officials failed to detect the sexual
 abuse, which had not been reported by the baby sitter.

     The LDS Church argues it should not be required to abide by child
 abuse reporting laws when it learns of abuse via a member's confession.
 The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, the church
 reasons, and the church requires its leaders to keep "confessions''
 confidential. Indeed, a clergy-penitent shield formally is recognized in
 some states.

     The church also contends it was not covered by the 1989 version of
 West Virginia's reporting law, which required "religious healers" to
 report. Members of the clergy were added in 1992.

     Raleigh County Circuit Judge H.L. Kirkpatrick has dismissed some
 claims, citing the First Amendment in refusing to probe whether the
church
 followed its own policies for handling reports of child sexual abuse
 cases. However, the judge said the state's interest in protecting
children
 outweighs the LDS Church's interest in keeping Doe's confession secret,
 allowing other claims to proceed to trial.

     "This court will not make the protection of children from physical
and
 sexual abuse subservient to free exercise interests of the LDS Church
 defendants," the judge wrote. "This court can think of no greater
 compelling interest than the expectation of a child to be free from the
 horrors of physical and sexual abuse."

     The judge also said jurors should decide whether Meldrum was a
 "religious healer" required to report. Church defendants have asked him
to
 reconsider.

    Requiring Reports: Child abuse reporting laws and legal privileges
vary
 from state to state. According to Utah's law, "any person" who has reason
 to believe a child is being abused or neglected is required to report to
 authorities.

     However, Utah law says a clergy member who learns of abuse during a
 confession by a perpetrator can keep the confession confidential. If the
 clergy member learns of the abuse from any other source, such as a victim
 or concerned friend, he or she is required to report.

     About nine states, including West Virginia, have child abuse
reporting
 laws that "purport to abdicate" or overrule clergy confidentiality,
Keetch
 said. Appellate courts have not yet definitively resolved the conflict
 between those specific laws and freedom of religion arguments, said Rev.
 Raymond O'Brien, professor of law at Catholic University.

     O'Brien argues the clergy privilege should be respected by the
courts.
 "Say you're a pedophile -- where can you go, if everyone must report, to
 talk, get help, turn yourself in, or at least end the behavior?"

     Mandatory reporting laws arose in the 1970s as child welfare
advocates
 challenged a traditional view that abuse was a family matter. A sense
 developed that professionals who work with children should be required to
 watch for abuse and report it, said Paul Chill, a law professor at the
 University of Connecticut.

     Without such laws, "Everybody is thinking it's somebody else's job,"
 adds Kathryn Harding, acting director of research for Prevent Child Abuse
 America.

     To ensure a clergy exemption from such laws serves society as a
whole,
 O'Brien acknowledges, and clergy must recognize the seriousness of child
 sexual abuse and the necessity of guiding offenders into professional
 treatment.

     An untrained clergy response is often "to tend to hide it or ignore
 it, because the person [offending] is the one you would least expect," or
 due to discomfort with discussing deviant sexual behavior, he said.
 Catholic seminaries today include such training. But extending such
 education to volunteers or a volunteer lay clergy is a challenge, he
said.

     Keetch asserts most perpetrators who are willing to confess to an LDS
 leader have been willing to accept urgings to report the abuse
themselves.

     "If not, often there will be a wife, or a mother, or a family member,
 or some other victim, or someone else where a bishop can work through the
 process and get the report made without violating the confidence," he
 said.

     But Sullivan argues LDS Church officials have not adequately followed
 up on the occasional training sessions to ensure bishops are following
 written policies encouraging reporting -- which would allow authorities
to
 hold offenders accountable for their crimes. Past lawsuits routinely
 complain clergy did not obey reporting laws.

     In Utah, professionals who work with abused children -- from
 therapists to police -- say bishops in Utah still occasionally fail to
 report abuse when they learn of it outside a confession.

    Confidential Settlements: A shield of privacy surrounds the LDS
 Church's resolution of complaints about its handling of child sexual
 abuse, making it impossible to define the total number of claims,
informal
 and formal, and the amount of money paid by the church.

     Not even the amounts paid to resolve publicly filed lawsuits can be
 ascertained, because confidentiality is a routine requirement for a
 settlement. Even the end result of the lawsuit that snared a $4 million
 jury award last year is not public. The church initially said it would
 appeal, then negotiated a confidential settlement with the molested boy.

     In 1993, after a California jury found the LDS Church liable and
 decided it should pay punitive damages in the molestation of a
13-year-old
 girl, the trial was halted and the case settled before jurors considered
 how much to award.

     The secret settlements are "a very well-crafted legal strategy,"
 Sullivan said. "They [lawsuits] simply disappear off the public's radar."


     Of the more than 40 plaintiffs, Keetch contends the church has either
 won dismissals or paid limited settlements -- equivalent to the legal
 expense of defending the case -- in nearly all cases. Only about seven
 settlements have been in amounts higher than that benchmark, he said.

     Attorneys who have researched and been involved in past litigation
 dispute his accounting, contending the church has spent millions in
 settlements and legal defense costs. The payment of only defense costs to
 settle cases "is completely inaccurate in every single case we had," said
 Dugas, who won the $4 million verdict and has sued the church on behalf
of
 a half-dozen other victims in Texas.

     Keetch argues critics should consider the relatively small number of
 lawsuits filed: With more than 11,000 Mormon congregations in the United
 States, the suits represent claims against a tiny fraction of the
church's
 clergy.

     But solely examining claims made in filed lawsuits gives a
deceptively
 narrow impression of the scope of the problem, Kosnoff retorts.

     First, victims' families have made additional, informal claims
 directly to the church. Keetch did not provide a number of such claims,
 but said he is personally involved in handling "three or four" a year.

     Second, many families are understandably reluctant to pursue legal
 action against their church, even if they feel mistakes were made.
Oakland
 attorney William Johnson represented several families who sued a
 California Little League and Babe Ruth organization after their sons were
 molested by a popular coach.

     Some families also sued the LDS Church, contending it had known of
 sexual misconduct by the coach, a Mormon, and failed to report it. The
 coach had been previously excommunicated for sexual misconduct, but later
 was reinstated.

     Other families declined to sue the church. "They didn't think they
 could continue to worship in the church with that going on," Johnson
said.

     Kosnoff said he has talked with Mormon families who decided against
 suing their church, believing "it's the true church, and that would be
 like suing God, and you can't do that."

     LDS families often make the church the center of both their spiritual
 and social lives, and suing would place extraordinary stress on them,
 Kosnoff adds. The Oregon youth represented by Kosnoff has left the
church,
 sending him into a version of culture shock, the attorney said. "There
 never was a non-Mormon in their [the family's] house."

     Even the church's response to lawsuits is in dispute. Keetch argues
 the number of suits has dropped in recent years because the church is
 compassionate. When it learns of an allegation "a church leader didn't do
 all that he could . . . [it] immediately goes in and offers counseling
for
 as long as it takes," he said. It also offers money for tutoring and
other
 family needs. "When attorneys especially are willing to [accept] that, we
 simply don't have a problem with the lawsuits," Keetch said. Los Angeles
 psychologist Paul Lees-Haley, who has evaluated victims bringing claims
 against several churches, said the LDS Church "has a surprisingly
generous
 attitude toward the people suing them. [Representatives say] 'Don't be
 bashful about telling us ways we can help them.' "

     Some attorneys counter they have faced aggressive litigation tactics
 from the church. Indeed, Keetch draws a distinction between claims from
 families willing to settle for counseling and other assistance, and
 lawsuits that demand hefty punitive damages. He condemns such suits as
 "attorney retirement plans," because lawyers usually receive a third or
 more of any award as their fees.

     "The problem we run into is when we have an attorney say, 'I want
$750
 million, or I want $100 million, or I want $50 million.' " Such a suit,
he
 adds, "the church will fight until it is dead . . . because all of a
 sudden it's not anymore about helping the child. In fact, it's about
 hurting the child."

     But lawyers argue such suits are aimed at benefiting children in
 general, by driving improvements in the church's training for clergy and
 its response to child sexual abuse. "Nobody's going to take it seriously
 until one of these cases hits it big," Kosnoff said.

     Rebecca Doe, the mother of the children abused in West Virginia,
 agrees.

     "We'd like to prevent this from happening to other kids," she told
The
 Tribune. Her own children are angry their abuse continued, both for their
 own suffering and because the long-term abuse led to the virtual life
 sentence imposed on their father, she said.

     If church officials had reported the abuse in 1989, "they would have
 stopped it a lot sooner," she said, "and the children wouldn't have so
 many scars now."


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:41:17 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> The Relatedness of Living Things

Len Scott, dairyman extraordinary, approached the back of his lawn and
called across the hedge to his professor friend, "Hi, neighbor. Got all
your biological specimens under control?"

"All but my neighbors and the starlings," Brother Nielson returned. "Come
on over and sit awhile."

"Thanks, I'd like to. It's a couple of hours yet before sacrament
meeting."

"By the way, congratulations on winning the award for the best Holstein
herd in the county. Those must be pretty fancy cows of yours."

"They certainly are. Why last year one of my cows produced an average of
eight gallons of milk a day."

"That sounds like an unbelievable amount of milk for one cow."

"Well, today's cows produce much more than cows did just a few years back.
Last year in this country 16,000,000 cows produced more milk than
27,000,000 cows produced just 30 years ago."

"What did you do, start feeding them milkweeds for hay?"

"Certainly good feed helps, but this record was made possible by our
selective breeding program.  For years we dairymen have been culling out
the scrubs and selecting the top producers for breeding stock."

"You dairymen have been able to accomplish virtually a miracle through
your selective breeding program.  Do you think that God has the power to
use the same technique of selection that you dairymen use?"

"What do you mean? Of course God has this power."

"Well, last week when we were discussing the creation of the world you
said that life on earth could not have come about by evolution. We both
agree on the one really essential aspect, that God created all living
things; but when you say that He could not do so by an evolutionary
process, are you not in effect saying that God could not do with the
beasts and the lilies of the field what man can do with cows and dogs or
wheat and roses?"

"I didn't say He couldn't; I just said He didn't. Besides, what has the
development of a strain of cows got to do with evolution?"

"The term 'evolution' means 'orderly change, unrolling or development.'
The development of a good strain of Holsteins from the scrubby cows of the
past is an example of evolution--an evolution directed and controlled by
man."

"Yes, but the man who developed today's Holstein cows started with cows!

Everyone recognizes that strains within species differ widely from one
another, such as in the case of dogs; but variations occur only within
species--species never change."

"Variations occur across species lines just as they do within a species,
as I could easily show you. But first answer me this: if God did not
create the fish of the sea, the beasts of the fields, the fowls of the air
and all manner of herbs, grasses, and trees by an evolutionary process,
then how did He do it?"

"Well, I suppose He created each kind of organism by some kind of a
'special creation' at the time He created the world, just like it says in
Genesis."

"Let me remind you that it doesn't specifically say that in Genesis; that
is your interpretation of the account of the creation. I believe in the
Biblical account of creation, but I don't agree with your interpretation
of it. Suppose we look at some of the implications of your 'special
creation' idea and of the evolution idea, and then consider these
implications in the light of some observed facts. You may not agree with
the most commonly accepted interpretations of these facts, but a knowledge
of them will help you decide more wisely for yourself.

"If all forms of life were created by a especial creation,' then it must
follow that all kinds of plants and animals alive today were created at
the beginning essentially in their present form and not at some more
recent time. It also follows that all species have remained distinct with
more or less sharply defined limits from the beginning until the present.
Do you agree that these generalizations are inherent in the concept of
special creation?"

"Yes, I suppose they are.  Otherwise, there would have been changes, or as
you put it, 'evolution.' "

How Did Life Begin?

"By contrast, life may have begun as one or a number of simple, one-celled
organisms. These organisms developed the ability to duplicate themselves
by some process so the products were similar to, but not necessarily
identical with, the parent cells. Thus, there would be slight variations
among the offspring. It seems quite logical that these individuals which
were best adapted to their environment would be the ones most likely to
survive; and, if they lived long enough to reproduce, they would be the
ones which would leave offspring. On the other hand, those that were
poorly adapted to the environment, the scrubs as you call them, would be
least likely to survive; and, if they did not reproduce, their kind would
not be perpetuated. The problem of survival for all individuals, but
especially for the scrubs, would become increasingly acute as the numbers
of organisms became more and more numerous."

There Are Many Different Environments

"Inasmuch as physical conditions differ widely from place to place, there
were, and are, many different environments; for example, some hot, some
cold, some wet or dry, bright or shady. Each different environment would
favor organisms with different adaptations so the organisms in one
environment would become less and less like their fellows in a different
environment, and thus the tree of life would branch. Should the organisms
in various habitats become sufficiently different, they could no longer be
considered the same species. The development of a new species, however,
would require considerable time. Each 'new year's' model would be very
much like the last, but over a considerable period of time a strain might
differ greatly from the original model. There might even be some of the
old models still around."

"Then, Brother Nielson, you are suggesting there are still 'Model T' kinds
of plants and animals?"

"Yes, but most of the 'Model Ts' have been retired for 'T-birds' and
'V.W.s.' And, as I see it, today's species of plants and animals came into
being by a process not unlike the way our present styles of cars came
about, by a process of trial and testing, discarding the unfit, saving the
best for each purpose, and going on from there with further improvements;
in short, they evolved. And if this is so, then the lines of descent of
each species today would not reach back to the beginning, like distinct
ribbons, any more than do our present car models extend back unchanged to
the year 1900. Instead, the lines of descent resemble a tree, a great
'tree of life.' The original primitive organisms would constitute

the trunk and from this trunk would diverge many branches. But unlike real
trees, the branches would not all be alike rather, each branch would be
different. Simple forms would give rise to more complex forms; primitive
kinds would give rise to more advanced forms. Often the primitive kinds
would die out and replaced by the more 'progressive' ones, but if the
primitive kinds were well enough adapted to survive and reproduce, they
too might persist."

A Giant Genealogical Pedigree Chart

"It sounds to me like a giant genealogical pedigree chart."

"Yes, that's exactly what it is."

"Except that all the plants and animals wouldn't be related to each other
like the individuals on a pedigree chart."

"Not exactly, but if you place species names in place of the names of
individuals, the pattern would be similar. What do you say we do some
really old genealogical research and take a look at the record of the
past. We can start with the story in the rocks -the 'dust of the earth,'
if I might use a quote. It is easily observed that these layers have been
twisted, folded, bent, and cracked; but in the main the oldest ones are at
the bottom, and the youngest are on top. As you know, the rocks often
contain fossil remains of past forms of life. Sometimes the preservation
has been poor and the remains are very fragmentary, but sometimes the
organisms have been so well preserved that the very cells of the organism
and structures within the cells can be discerned in detail.  The older
layers of rock contain fossils which are the remains of primitive forms of
life. Most of these are now extinct and occur no place on earth that we
know of.  For example, our oldest coal beds contain fossils of hundreds of
species of insects, fish, reptiles, ferns, and trees that do not exist
today.

"On the other hand, fossil evidence of the more advanced animals and
plants is completely missing from these older strata, but there are
abundant fossils of these organisms in the younger layers. Today there are
8,000 known species of mammals, the group of animals to which man belongs;
but no fossils of true mammals have been found until relatively late in
the geologic timetable.

"Similarly, there are about 200,000 species of flowering plants known
today. No fossil remains of these plants are known from the older layers
of rock. They do not appear on the scene until about the same time as the
mammals, but fossils of these plants are abundant in the younger strata of
rock. It would seem from these facts that present day species do not
extend back to the beginning as distinct 'ribbons' of life.

Progression of Species

"As for species remaining distinct back to the beginning, there are
numerous examples of groups of species that merge gradually into each
other, making it very difficult to draw lines of demarcation between the
various kinds.  Some examples of this condition are found in the brome
grasses, wheat grasses, oak trees, sparrows and lampreys. The species thus
seem to converge or to branch out from a common trunk.  Possibly they are
still evolving and have not achieved a fixed state. The closely related
species may hybridize with ease, indicating how closely they are related."

"It is rather obvious that the different species of sparrows are closely
related to each other, and most oak trees seem related to other oaks; but
isn't it rather ridiculous to claim that sparrows are related to oak trees
and that rabbits are related to trout and that they are both related to
grasses?"

"Well, the examples you mention are pretty far apart; but would you expect
the more remote branches of this great tree of life to be alike? Let's
take a look at some examples closer to the main trunk.  Here one could
expect to find creatures that are intermediate between the major branches
and thus provide a kind of link between them.  Now to illustrate what I
mean, would you tell me the differences between a plant and an animal?'

Plants and Animals Defined

"Surely, that's easy enough. Plants are anchored in one place, and they
are green and make their own food. Animals move around; they are not
green, and they depend on plants or other animals for their food."

"All right, now let's see if these distinctions are always reliable. Let
me tell you about an organism I have in mind--no, I'll tell you about its
whole family; it's the Volvox family. The simplest member of the family is
a pear-shaped, single-celled organism. It has whiplike hairs that enable
it to swim around in water; hence, on that basis it should be an animal.
But it also has chlorophyll and makes its own food and by this token
should be a plant.  It has a larger cousin made up of four similar cells
joined together in a flat plate, and a still larger cousin with sixteen
similar cells packed together like pomegranate seeds in a solid sphere. A
still more advanced species has thirty-two cells comprising a hollow
sphere, and finally there is Volvox, with hundreds of cells making up a
large hollow sphere.  All of these organisms swim around in water in all
stages, and they all possess chlorophyll and manufacture their own food.
Botanists consider them plants, but zoologists regard them as animals."

"Well, what are they?"

"Who is to say? They fit at the bottom of the trunk before it branched to
form two separate kingdoms. And as primitive as these organisms are, they
are by no means the most primitive forms of life. The blue-green algae and
bacteria are much more simple and more primitive. Still simpler than these
are the viruses which seem to be on the border between the living and the
nonliving. They have some traits of living organisms such as a definite
form and a mechanism for getting themselves reproduced. But not all
biologists are ready to regard them fully as living."

Cell Structures Are Similar

"It's rather easy to see apparent relationships in these lower forms of
life. We even recognize many sequences like the one in the Volvox family
which show an increasing complexity. But let's return to our consideration
of relationships between sparrows and oaks and rabbits and fish and
grasses. They certainly are different in outward appearances. Feathers and
fins and fur and foliage are a long way apart; but what would we find if
we looked inside, at the basic unit of life, the cells. Each of these, and
all other living organisms are composed of cells, you know.

"An organism might be composed of a single cell, or it might consist of
several million or billion cells. The most primitive organisms have no
well-organized, distinct cell structures; but all higher organisms, both
plants and animals, have cells that are remarkably similar in structure
and function. They all have a similar netlike organization of the life
substances; they have similar nuclei, chromosomes, mitochondria, and so
on.

Also we see the same type of progression from simple to complex that we
saw in organisms repeated in the cells.

"The same kind of similarity we observe in the structure of the cells of
plants and animals is seen in their physiology. Let me tell you about just
two examples that illustrate the close relationship of living things. All
living cells require a continual supply of energy to carry on their
various life processes. The ultimate source of this energy is the sun, but
it is stored in cells in the form of foods such as sugars and starch. The
energy of these foods is released by the process of respiration. Within
each cell this process involves some twenty or thirty distinct steps which
release the energy in small, 'bite-size' amounts. Each step is controlled
by a complex regulator called an enzyme. The process of respiration seems
to follow the same pattern in birds and trees and people and grass and so
on, endlessly, even to the point of involving the same enzymes.

The Mechanism of Inheritance

"Still more amazing facts have been revealed recently by modem biologists
and biochemists in their studies of the mechanism of inheritance.

The heart of the chromosome which regulates and controls each living cell
and which carries the hereditary or genetic code from generation to
generation is a long spiral ladder-like substance called deoxyribonucleic
acid, or DNA for short. The 'rungs' of the ladder are comprised of four
different organic compounds. The arrangement and sequence of these
compounds determine the genetic code by which hereditary traits are
transmitted from cell to cell and from parent to progeny. Of course, the
arrangement of the compounds differs from gene to gene and from species to
species; but the transmission of hereditary traits by means of DNA is
characteristic of all advanced plants such as grasses and trees and of
animals such as rabbits and people, and a similar mechanism is found in
microorganisms like bacteria, and even in viruses!"

"But does this prove that all plants and animals are related? Couldn't the
Master have used the same recipe for all life?"

Nothing Proven Conclusively

"I think it proves nothing conclusively, but these facts and countless
others, some discovered only 'yesterday,' reveal a basic unity in all
living things no matter how diverse they are in outward appearances. To
me, this indicates a magnificent master plan of creation, of such
magnitude that it fills me with awe and inspiration."

"Well, this has been quite a discussion; and to think it all started with
an innocent remark about my herd of Holsteins. We have surely strayed a
long way from cows."

"No, we haven't, not really. You see Charles Darwin was strongly impressed
by the fact that men have been able to make great improvements in domestic
plants and animals by selective breeding; this was one of the things that
led to his theory of evolution. But he couldn't see how nature selected
among wild things as did man among his domestic livestock.

Then he learned of the observations of the Reverend Thomas Malthus, that
populations tend to increase faster than does their food supply. These
populations thereby outrun their available food. Darwin recognized a
parallel situation in nature. He knew that all plants and animals have a
tendency to produce more offspring than will survive.

For example, if a single Russian thistle were to produce only 50 seeds,
and if these should all grow and produce only 50 seeds each, and if these
in turn should grow and produce 50 seeds, and this continued year after
year, there would be 78,125,000,000 Russian thistles in just seven years.

Since all forms of life tend to produce more offspring than can possibly
survive, which ones are most likely to survive? Darwin reasoned that those
which were best adapted to their particular environment would live and
reproduce, thereby leaving progeny similar to themselves. Here then was a
mechanism for the selection of the favored races that would survive.
Darwin termed it 'natural selection,' in contrast to the 'artificial
selection' practiced by man in improving domestic plants and animals."

Whom Knowledge Ends, Faith Takes Over

"What you say, and the way you put it, seems logical. It might even be
true that plants and animals in general have come about through
evolutionary processes, but I can't accept the idea that man arose by such
a process."

"And why can't you, Brother Scott?"

"Because I can't understand how to reconcile an evolutionary origin of man
and the Biblical story of Adam."

"I don't understand it, either; neither do I really understand the
hereafter nor the preexistence. But where knowledge ends, faith must take
over.

Still I see no great problem; there are so many explanations. For example,
evolution might account only for man's physical body; the addition of that
'divine spark' that sets man apart from the other animals might have been
the final step that created the man, Adam. Whichever way it came about, I
am willing to wait until some future time for the details."

"You scientists pride yourselves in being able to wait for answers, but I
don't have that much patience I'd like to know now."

God, The Master Architect

"I would, too; but I'm willing to wait. Whatever the details are, I
believe that God did indeed create man and all other living things by an
evolutionary process. I believe, too, that a God who could devise such a
patten of creation, a patten that provides the means for plants and
animals to adapt to all the myriad environmental niches of a changing
world, a pattern that carries within it the incentive--yes, the
necessity-- of continual improvement, would have to be a far superior
Being to one who need only create a large number of unrelated fixed
species, each of which might last only until things became unfavorable for
them and then pass out of existence like a dinosaur. I believe also that
an understanding of the infinite complexity of living organisms, and of
the evolutionary processes by which they have achieved such delicate
organization and such balance with their environment, leads one to a
greater sense of wonder and reverence for the Master Planner."

"Well, Brother Nielsen, you have given me some interesting ideas to think
about, but don't think you've convinced me that evolution is true--I'm not
ready to accept that!"

"Do you think I expected you to abandon the convictions of a lifetime as
the result of an hour's discussion? Each of us must interpret life in the
light of his own information and background. One must have a broad
understanding of biology to be competent to judge whether evolution is
true or not I have been studying biology for a quarter of a century--how
could I expect you to see things as I see them, anymore than you could
expect me now to be an expert in the dairy industry?"

"I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to convert me to the
idea of evolution."

"I never try to convert anyone to evolution, but I do believe in helping
people to understand enough to judge for themselves. What I was trying to
do was to convince you that one can believe in evolution and still believe
in the Gospel. I believe the Gospel embraces all truth; then if evolution
is true, it is part of the Gospel."

"Thanks, Brother Nielsen. This has been a rewarding discussion. I think I
understand enough to see that there is a place in the Church for both of
us."

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Harrison Is professor of botany at Brigham Young University. He won
his B.S. and M.S. degrees from BYU in 1930 and 1931; his Ph.D. was granted
by the University of Chicago in 1937. He is a member of the Utah Academy
of Science, and the Deseret Sunday School Union General Board. He has
worked as range naturalist In Yellowstone National Park, and for the
American Smelting and Refining Company. He married the former Lorna
Jensen. They are the parents of four children.

- ------------------------------------------------------
In publishing the articles in this series, "I Believe," we sincerely agree
with 2 Nephi 9:29: "But to be learned is good if they (men) hearken unto
the counsels of God."

This article by Brother Harrison has been read and approved for
publication by the editor [President David O. McKay] and associate editors
of The Instructor. Like other articles in this series, it is presented not
as Church doctrine but as a statement worthy of serious study, written by
a faithful Latter-day Saint who is competent to speak as a scholar in his
field.

- ------------------------------------

Bertrand F. Harrison, "The Relatedness of Living Things," The Instructor,
July 1965.

[The Instructor was the LDS church official magazine before the Ensign.]




Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

End of gdm-digest V2 #16
************************