The Mormon Church Sex Abuse Conspiracy

From an3rkist

"Many of the homosexuals who abuse children are sexually depraved because they spend their whole lives trying to suppress these feelings, which is extremely unhealthy. I don't defend these criminals, but I do think that society needs to reform it's views and it's treatment of homosexuals, and until we do abuse will continue. When homosexuals are allowed to practice their own rights and freedom without shame or guilt caused by our screwed up society, healthier relationships will be formed and abuse by homosexuals will drop severely."


Nice theory, but the problem with it is... if one looks back in time to societies that had open homosexuality, Greece Rome etc, one finds a "much" higher volume of sex with children. pederasty was commonplace in those societies.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Black Sword]

Originally posted by Black Sword
Nice theory, but the problem with it is... if one looks back in time to societies that had open homosexuality, Greece Rome etc, one finds a "much" higher volume of sex with children. pederasty was commonplace in those societies.

Well the thing about Greece was that not only was pederasty allowed, but some of the Greeks who had a lot of power and happened to be pederasts formed a culture of people who actually believed that pederasty was "godly" using art forms to convince people that Zeus was a pederast Himself:

Ganymede...was "the boy-lover given to Father Zeus by Hellenic writers anxious to create a divine prototype for their cult of homosexuality." Simultaneously, the creation of the Ganymede myth reflected the reduced power of Greek women. Walker continues:

He became cupbearer to the Gods, replacing Hebe who was the virgin aspect of Mother Hera. Thus the dispenser of immortality was made male instead of female.

members.aol.com...

If a group of people believe that their deity or deities condoned pederasty, they just might warm up to the idea, too. So in Greece, this might explain why pederasty was as common as it was. As for Rome, I cannot find anything that supports your claim about pedophilia being a major occurrence there. I could be typing in the wrong searches, but the only reference I could find was an Amazon.com book review where the reviewer stated "The Romans though lusty did not approve of pedophilia and past laws banning what they classified as Amicitiae mos Graecorum or the 'Greek practices'. Where an adolescent would come under the wing of an older man." There's no telling how credible this source is, but it's all I could find on the subject.

[edit on 29/11/06 by an3rkist]

Originally posted by Black Sword
...if one looks back in time to societies that had open homosexuality, Greece Rome etc, one finds a "much" higher volume of sex with children. pederasty was commonplace in those societies.

That's correct.

But that was after they had degenerated and stopped listening to the Initiates and Masters of the Khemetian Mysteries; such as Pythagoras, Plato, Plutarch, etc.

The Greek and Khemetian Gods being pretty much the same, under different names.


And now the destiny of our so-called "civilization", is the same as that of Greece and Rome.

Destruction.

"If a group of people believe that their deity or deities condoned pederasty, they just might warm up to the idea, too. So in Greece, this might explain why pederasty was as common as it was."

& all the other gay cultures going back to antiquity that had no similiar belief system probably were more shall we say, impulse motivated?

Sorry, don't buy the god thing, sexual behaviour is crotch motivated more than anything else.


en.wikipedia.org...

Elsewhere, it was practiced in pre-Modern Japan until the Meiji restoration,[9] in Mughal India until the British colonization, amongst the Aztecs and Maya prior to the Spanish conquest of Mexico and in China and Central Asia until the early 20th century. In the Islamic world spiritual pederasty was incorporated into many mystic Sufi teachings. The tradition of pederasty persists to the present day in certain areas of Afghanistan, the Middle East, North Africa, and Melanesia.




[edit on 29-11-2006 by Black Sword]

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Black Sword]

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Black Sword]

Now, one can say it was religion motivated, but religion is a device & invention of man, often to suit his needs. If one 'needs' to have sex with boys, one invents a religious reason for it.

Originally posted by Black Sword
Sorry, don't buy the god thing, sexual behaviour is crotch motivated more than anything else.

I wasn't saying that I, personally, believe that any god says that pederasty or pedophilia is okay. I was only saying that in ancient Greece, there were people who believed this, and that may be why it was socially acceptable to some extent. After all, I am an agnostic-atheist; I couldn't care less what any god says, I'm going to make my own decisions.

Originally posted by Black Sword
Now, one can say it was religion motivated, but religion is a device & invention of man, often to suit his needs. If one 'needs' to have sex with boys, one invents a religious reason for it.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying the Greeks did way back when to make it socially acceptable, and therefore that's why pederasty was more prominent then than it is now in our culture. The argument was brought up that pedophiles are not encouraged to commit child abuse by society's narrow-mindedness because the Greeks had many pedophiles and they were more compassionate towards homosexuals. My argument was that it's possible that pedophilia was more prominent in Greece because pedophiles created a religious doctrine that the society of the time believed that condoned or even deified pederasty and pedophilia.

But that was after they had degenerated and stopped listening to the Initiates and Masters of the Khemetian Mysteries; such as Pythagoras, Plato, Plutarch, etc.

I have to jump in here and make a point to Tamahu (it's off topic but relates to comments Tamahu has made in this thread).

You say things degenerated when people stopped listening to the "Initiates" and "masters of the Khemetian Mysteries?" and some of these masters and initiates are Pythagoras, Plato and Plutarch??

Well...you have made it quite clear Tamahu that you hate homosexuals. So, why do you think Pythagoras is a wonderful "Initiate" and "Master of the Khemetian Mysteries" when he was a homosexual??

Nero: seduced by his mother

Nero's reported sexual activities range from being seduced by his mother Agrippina to forcing his unwanted attentions on married women and boys. Famously, he takes two homosexual lovers, Pythagoras and Sporus, in 'marriage'. Nero is said to behave as the wife to Pythagoras and husband to Sporus, whom he has had castrated. Taken together with his 'artistic' performances (see The arts), when he will often take on a female part and dress accordingly, Nero's behaviour scandalises Rome and plays an important part in his downfall.

source: www.channel4.com...

It seems Nero and Pythagoras were lovers and in fact married. Nero considered himself the wife of Pythagoras. Is this proper behavior Tamahu for your "Masters of Khimetian Mysteries?"

Plato, if not homosexual himself, was not against it, but quite the contrary:

"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.

source: www.fordham.edu...

Plato felt homosexuality was regarded as shameful by barbarians and those who live under depsotic governments. So again, if not homosexual, he was certainly in favor of homosexuality.

I'm amazed Tamahu that you follow the teachings of such men...when they go against your belief that homosexuality is disgusting, etc....as you have posted throughout this thread and others. Can you explain??

I couldn't find much on Plutarch except that he had no problem with homosexuality as long as it was between adults. He was against pederasty!

edit to say: Sorry I got off topic....but just had to question Tamahu on this stuff. Plus....Khemetians seem to be some kind of lunatics or pagans or devil worshippers or aliens from another planet that live for 1000 years depending on what one reads. So.....who in their right minds follows Khemetians anyway??

Now I will get back on track and back on the subject of sexual misconduct within the Mormon church!!

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

& Freud & Guatama Siddartha were not hip on homosexuality. For every supposed enlightened man who was in favor of it, one can easily find equivelant or even greater men not in favor of it.

Doesn't really matter what Plato thought, mother nature is quite clear that sodomy is unnatural. Any MD will verify that.

The 'GREAT' Ted Nugent perhaps said it best ; If you want to indulge in mucous coated peanut butter, go right ahead, just don't get any on me.

Originally posted by Black Sword
mother nature is quite clear that sodomy is unnatural.

She is? When did mother nature say this?

I didn't see you post any evidence to support your claim, so I'll post some that doesn't support it:

More than 1500 different species of animals besides humans have been documented engaging in "homosexual" relations. Care for a list?

en.wikipedia.org...

If that isn't Mother Nature saying it's not unnatural, I don't know what is. I've never heard any MD say it's unnatural, but I would assume most, if not all, that do say this are...Christian.

[edit on 6/12/06 by an3rkist]

The website went down before I could edit this into my previous post, but this is some more stuff I wanted to say in my last post:

Originally posted by Black Sword
any MD will tell you that

I did a little search on WebMD to see if anything came up in reference to your claim that "any MD" would say it isn't natural. You also didn't post any evidence to support that claim, so here's what I found. It's not much, but it's more than you put forward:

Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is the result of a combination of environmental, emotional, hormonal, and biological factors.

Most experts agree that sexual orientation is not a choice

www.webmd.com...

Now I'm sure you wouldn't be so careless as to have made these claims without anything to back them up. Would you mind posting a link or a quote or something even remotely verifiable that supports your claims?

[edit on 7/12/06 by an3rkist]

Great work an3rkist.....

I just gave you another WATS!

The 'GREAT' Ted Nugent perhaps said it best ; If you want to indulge in mucous coated peanut butter, go right ahead, just don't get any on me.

Ted Nugent is certainly quite the authority on homosexuality! What exactly is mucous coated peanut butter?

[edit on 8-12-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

Well I got a little carried away in my last post or two and flew a little off topic. I'm so ashamed! But i just found this article which is quite interesting and quite on topic:

www.skeptictank.org...

In a ruling that carries national significance, a West Virginia court ruled recently that the First Amendment does not protect religious organizations from civil liability merely because of their status as a church.

In the above article a young girl is abused by her father and the Mormon Church covers it up. As a defense, they claimed they had First Amendment rights to cover it up. But in 1998 a judge ruled that they have no right to cover things of this nature up.

I also think it's interesting that the Mormon Church did this:

Church lawyers have attempted to distance the Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, from the local church in Beckley, claiming its members were not acting for the Mormon Church itself when they failed to report the sexual abuse of Jane Doe. The Court found this contention by the Church unpersuasive and ruled that a jury should decide whether or not Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City exercise control over their local churches.

This defense seems to contradict the things they teach. All members who are in leadership positions were "called upon by God". If the Church claims that members who they put into their positions by divine mandate of God Himself, how can they later try to flip that around to protect themselves?

[edit on 8/12/06 by an3rkist]

Here you go 3Ark. This is what mother nature says about sodomy. & what animals do has nothing to do with the unnaturalness of sodomy. What I said is 100 % correct.

Why Sodomy is Unnatural

Let's put sodomy in scientific perspective. The virus that causes AIDS
is very fragile. It can't survive when it contacts air, and can be
transmitted only through the blood stream (contaminated blood transfusion,
genital ulcers, etc.) or through the mucosa of the anus. Nature
provides two very different systems of operation for the vagina and the anus.
The vagina is normally open to the outside world so the sperm of the
male can be deposited inside the female body through sexual intercourse.
The vagina is totally impermeable to viruses, because nature has
provided that the vaginal mucosa has no lymphatic network, and the lymphatic
network in our body is made to absorb substances. The rectum, by
contrast, is designed precisely to absorb up to the last possible useful
nutrient from the food we have eaten and digested. There is an enormous
lymphatic network in the mucosa of the rectum. The rectum is made to
absorb as much as possible from whatever passes through it. If the vagina
could
accept viruses, women would die from every sort of viral disease. Women
survive because nature has designed the vagina for the reception of
sperm but not viruses. The rectum was designed for the absorption of
nutrients from digested food before its excretion, and clearly not for
introducing anything from the outside. Hence, the use of the anus for
intercourse is quite simply unnatural, contrary to nature, counter to the
purposes for which human anatomy was naturally designed.

Physical repercussions of wounds resulting from sodomy and related
forms of anal-rectal penetration:

1.These internal wounds provide enormous opportunity for the entrance
and spread of AIDS virus and other infections. 2.In some cases, the
damage from fisting is so extensive that a sphincterectomy of colostomy
must be performed. 3.Physiologically, the rectum is designed for the
expulsion of feces. When sodomy is performed, the peculiar forced inward
expansion of the anal canal results in a tearing of the lining as well as
bleeding anal fissures.

Immune System Suppression (excluding AIDS) 1. During sodomy, the
naturally aggressive properties of sperm combined with damage to the rectal
wall enable spermatozoa to penetrate the mucosal lining. A report in the
April 27, 1984, issue of Science by researchers at the Department of
Obstetrics an d Gynecology, Cornell Medical Center, New York, stated that
occurrence of AIDS among homosexuals "may have some relation to
circulating antibodies evoked as a result of semen deposition in the
alimentary canal [intestine]. Human seminal fluid apparentl y contains
components that potentially can suppress the immune response." 2. Reported in
Lancet, 2 June 1984, pp. 1212-1214: "A homosexual individual is
repeatedly exposed to viral antigens such as herpes and sperm antigens which can
be absorbed through the intact intestine or through mucosal lesions.
[Note: Bleeding lesions are not necessary for absorption of spermatozoa
and harmful infectious agents during sodomy, but they do facilitate
it.]"
3. Journal of the American Medical Association (Mavligit, op. cit., pp.
237- 241), noted that the association of sperm-induced immune
dysregulation with the practice of anal intercourse "underscores the critical
structural differences between the rectu m and the vagina. While the
lining of the vaginal mucosa comprises a squamous multilayer epithelium
capable of protecting against any abrasion effect during intercourse, the
lining of the rectum is made of a single layer of columnar epithelium.
The lat ter, unlike the vaginal epithelium, is not only incapable of
protecting against any abrasive effect, but also promotes the absorption
of an array of sperm antigens, thus enhancing their exposure to the
immune apparatus in the lymphatic and blood circulat ion. The high
immunogenicity possessed by spermatozoa, coupled with the microbiological
flora of the rectum, can work in synergism to generate a state of chronic
antigenic stimulation." 4. G. M. Mavligit et al.,"Chronic Immune
Stimulation by Sperm Alloantigens; Support for the Hypothesis That
Spermatozoa Induce Immune Dysregulation in Homosexual Males", JAMA 1984;
251: 237-241 "During sodomy, the biology design of the rectum combined
with the aggressive properties of sperm expedite their substantial
entrance into the bloodstream. When this occurs repeatedly, antibodi es to
sperm develop which circulate and impair the immune system." 5.
"Monogamous" sodomy is not a safe alternative. In a revealing study involving
monogamously paired homosexual males, three-fourths of the passive
partners manifested sperm-induced immune dysregulation. Mavligit, op. cit.,
p. 241. The immune dysregulation induced by sperm appears to debilitate
the sy stem quite apart from infection by the AIDS virus. 6. List of
diseases caused by homosexual behavior:

Hepatitis A - viral liver disease
Hepatitis B - causes cirrhosis and liver cancer Delta Hepatitis -
causes insanity and death Amebiasis - causes dysentery and sometimes liver
abscesses Giardiasis - causes inflammation of the intestinal tract
Shigellosis - sever dysentery can be fatal Venereal Diseases - syphilis,
incurable genital herpes, cytomegalovirus (CMV), venereal warts

AIDS Transmission

1. Sodomy, fisting, the use of mechanical devices and other practices
produce tears, fissures and lacerations of the rectum. This trauma
facilitates the entrance of infected sperm and pathogenic organisms into the
bloodstream. 2. Infected bloody secretions leaking through the damaged
walls of the rectum transmit the disease to the active partner through
the urethral opening and through open sores and abrasions of the penis
produced as a result of bodily abuse and disease. Fe llatio,
manual-genital and anal-oral sexual practices involving the ingestion of infected
semen, blood-streaked fecal matter and secretions facilitate
transmission of pathogens. 3. Incessant, oftentimes simultaneous sperm-induced
immune dysregulation, liver damage, intestinal parasites and venereal
diseases all abet debilitation of the immune system prior to and along
with infection the AIDS virus.

Defining acts such as sodomy, fisting, anilingus etc., as being
unnatural is not a matter of homophobic prejudice. Empirical medical evidence
clearly demonstrates that the rectum is not designed for intromission
of actual or makeshift sex organs, fi sts, forearms and the like.

[The AIDS Cover-up - Gene Antonio, Ignatius Press, 1987.]

And animals do not have developed psyches as humans do, irrelevant comparison. Humans can disern their choices & animals are instinctive. Very big difference. Dogs eat each others poop, so by your reasoning, we humans should be doing that too. Animal argument is dumb.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by Black Sword]

Originally posted by Black Sword
Here you go 3Ark. This is what mother nature says about sodomy. & what animals do has nothing to do with the unnaturalness of sodomy. What I said is 100 % correct.

So, your argument is that because a disease, (which in my opinion is probably not a "natural" disease, but I won't go into that), is spread more easily through what most homosexuals consider as "making love" than through the "normal" way of intercourse, homosexuality is therefore unnatural. A fair argument, but not all homosexuals engage in said form of sodomy. Additionally, many heterosexual couples do engage in this activity. I guess what I'm saying, is that even if sodomy is unnatural, (though I'm still not convinced, and I'm a little confused about what the definition of natural even is), that that does not prove homosexuality is unnatural.

And animals do not have developed psyches as humans do, irrelevant comparison. Humans can disern their choices & animals are instinctive. Very big difference. Dogs eat each others poop, so by your reasoning, we humans should be doing that too.

First off, the whole "developed psyche" thing is arguable and remains unproven. Secondly, I never said anything about how we "should" be engaging in homosexual relations; I simply said there's nothing wrong with it. Likewise, if somebody wants to eat poo, as disgusting as that is, I couldn't care less.

Anyway, this is a dead end argument that, not surprisingly, has gone slightly off topic. I'm done arguing about the rights or wrongs of homosexual relations, and would like to get back to the subject at hand.

[edit on 8/12/06 by an3rkist]

No, it is proven that humans have a cerebral cortex & behave differently than animals do. Science that is.

Rectum is not self lubricating & secondary muscle is there to prevent foreign objects from entering, scientific proof mother nature did not design the rectum for penile or any foreign object entrance. Period.


Mucous coated peanut butter should be kinda obvious, Mr Nugent chose a polite way of saying #. Which coats the rectal walls 24-7. He was scientifically/medically 100% correct.



Yes some hetero couple do engage in sodomy, but it is not the norm. Sodomy "is" considered gay sex. & the larger percentage of male homosexuals do engage in it. Therefore considered "the norm" for gay men. & it is harmfull, so your argument that homosexual relations as being harmless is scientifically incorrect.

"During sodomy, the biology design of the rectum combined
with the aggressive properties of sperm expedite their substantial
entrance into the bloodstream. When this occurs repeatedly, antibodi es to
sperm develop which circulate and impair the immune system." 5.
"Monogamous" sodomy is not a safe alternative. In a revealing study involving
monogamously paired homosexual males, three-fourths of the passive
partners manifested sperm-induced immune dysregulation.




[edit on 8-12-2006 by Black Sword]

[edit on 8-12-2006 by Black Sword]

The problem with Catholicism is that priests must hold themselves to an unbiblical standard of celibacy. The Vatican has, as such, made sex off limits to its leaders. It is normal for human beings to have sexual desire. Clearly, the actions of the Catholic leaders are wrong when they engage in sex abuse, but perhaps this would not occur if the mandatory celibacy was eliminated and they were allowed to marry like normal human beings.

Originally posted by southern_cross3
The problem with Catholicism is that priests must hold themselves to an unbiblical standard of celibacy. The Vatican has, as such, made sex off limits to its leaders. It is normal for human beings to have sexual desire. Clearly, the actions of the Catholic leaders are wrong when they engage in sex abuse, but perhaps this would not occur if the mandatory celibacy was eliminated and they were allowed to marry like normal human beings.

Interesting idea, but this thread is about the abuse in the Mormon Church. The Mormon Church does not require celibacy of anybody. In fact, they strongly encourage sexual relations between married couples, because they believe they cannot go to Heaven unless they have children. (In my opinion this is one of the main reasons the Mormon Church is one of the fastest growing religions in the world: everyone is required to procreate!)

[edit on 8/12/06 by an3rkist]

Originally posted by Black Sword
Defining acts such as sodomy, fisting, anilingus etc., as being
unnatural is not a matter of homophobic prejudice. Empirical medical evidence
clearly demonstrates that the rectum is not designed for intromission
of actual or makeshift sex organs, fi sts, forearms and the like.

What's analingus and why does the Empire of Medicine care if anyone does it?

Seriously, my question goes to the original poster: Don't you think the LDS church is more able to correct this problem internally than the Catholics are able to correct their problem which is much, much larger, in regards to harming innocents?

Also, why does lesbian behavior within the mormon patriarchal families a problem for you? If a bunch of women and girls have the same husband and they want to bathe naked together or have sex (except analingus, whatever that is) what's the big deal? They're still able to cook dinner and be good moms for their kids aren't they? Personally I like girls who can enjoy other girls, but maybe I'm the weird one?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Don't you think the LDS church is more able to correct this problem internally than the Catholics are able to correct their problem which is much, much larger, in regards to harming innocents?

The way the Mormon Church is set up, it's quite possible that the abuse problem in it rivals that of the Catholic Church. And the facts that have been presented show that the Mormon Church is not correcting this problem internally to the best of their ability.

Also, why does lesbian behavior within the mormon patriarchal families a problem for you? If a bunch of women and girls have the same husband and they want to bathe naked together or have sex (except analingus, whatever that is) what's the big deal?

Polygamy is no longer a practice in the mainstream Mormon religion. You will, in fact, be excommunicated if you are caught practicing it. I only brought up olygamy because when it was practiced by members, it sometimes involved older men marrying very young girls, and therefore may have somehow created a culture of pedophila in the doctrine of the Church.