Religion Greater Than Education and Nutrition In Utah

What does a parent need to provide for raising a well-adjusted child?  If you read the court-ordered evaluator recommendation in a random Utah custody case, it would seem as though “religion” and “morals” are the most important factors.  In fact, the rules for Utah custody evaluations list many other things (with religion being one of about a dozen listed criteria).  Shortly, that list includes: child’s preference, siblings, desire and bond, history, moral character, emotional stability, personal attention, drugs/alcohol use, religion, finances, and abuse.

What Utah rule (4-903) fails to list as important to child rearing is more interesting.  It has nothing on education, nothing on nutrition, nothing on immediate physical environment.  That doesn’t mean a psychologist cannot evaluate those things.  However, the state does not require them.

Let me reiterate here the criteria of Utah Custody evaluation so you can assess that the great state of Deseret, aka Utah, is lopsided on education, nutrition and safety over that of "religious compatibility" and "morals".


Utah State Law, Rule 4-903, includes 15 items: 

(5) The purpose of the custody evaluation will be to provide the court with information it can use to make decisions regarding custody and parenting time arrangements that are in the child’s best interest. …Unless otherwise specified in the order, evaluators must consider and respond to each of the following factors:
(5)(A) the child's preference;
(5)(B) the benefit of keeping siblings together;
(5)(C) the relative strength of the child's bond with one or both of the prospective custodians;
(5)(D) the general interest in continuing previously determined custody arrangements where the child is happy and well adjusted;
(5)(E) factors relating to the prospective custodians' character or status or their capacity or willingness to function as parents, including:
(5)(E)(i) moral character and emotional stability;
(5)(E)(ii) duration and depth of desire for custody;
(5)(E)(iii) ability to provide personal rather than surrogate care;
(5)(E)(iv) significant impairment of ability to function as a parent through drug abuse, excessive drinking or other causes;
(5)(E)(v) reasons for having relinquished custody in the past;
(5)(E)(vi) religious compatibility with the child;
(5)(E)(vii) kinship, including in extraordinary circumstances
 stepparent status;
(5)(E)(viii) financial condition; and
(5)(E)(ix) evidence of abuse of the subject child, another
 child, or spouse; and
(5)(F) any other factors deemed important by the evaluator, the parties, or the court.

Religion and “moral character”  are more important in Utah custody cases than health—than nutrition and a safe physical environment, the latter which do not appear in the rule.  Religion is even more important according to Utah’s 4-903 than education.  The words, "nutrition", "health", "education", "safety", and "environment" appear nowhere in rule 4-903, while "religious", "moral" and other like criteria do appear.

What the hell?  Only in Utah, apparently.  I hope the Utah judicial bar who see so many cases of neglect can persuade the legislature that their idealistic views are not helping families.

Any decently educated psychologist and sociologist knows the importance of good food, physical safety and proper education on the best interest of a child's well being.  Publications at the National Institutes of Health (US) clearly state, for example, that:  

“There is no aspect of our physical or psychological existence that is not affected in some way by nutrition. A profound lack of nutrition would obviously have a negative influence on all aspects of [child] development, and such effects of malnutrition are well documented.”

However, Utah's legislature doesn’t even seem to care.  Education, smeducation—phaw!  Nutrition, shrewmunition—meh!  Utah-Utard!  What will it take for the family courts to encourage their own legislatures to change the code so that education and nutrition have an equal stage with religion and "moral character"?  

Gallup Poll -- Are we due for a new one here in 2015? 

 Let's hope there's a downward trend.

LDS SECRET Leadership Information System (LIS)

In my October 2014 Exmormon Foundation talk, I told the audience about the LDS Leadership Information System, the LIS.  This is the system that probably vetted the latest candidates for the next three apostles which may be called in just over a week at the October 2015 LDS General Conference.

Here is the slide from that 2014 talk, where I verbalize a lot of information about the information systems the LDS use to vet future leaders. The slide is a fraction of what I said.

• Around 2008/09 the Q12 asked COB to produce a separate financial/contracts tracking system for contracts, which only Q12 and their assistants could access/monitor
• COB Insider speculation is that this “Leadership Information System” monitored nepotistic contracts given to Q12 family
• Another insider:  families and widows of GAs are financially blessed through church finance system

(Slide from the 2014 talk)

In my 2013 novel, I revealed some of what I had already known, but used a fictional form to let the world know, because my sources were anonymous.  Here's the text from 2013.

"Fellow SLCPD officers, including the non-Mormons, fondly referred to LDS security as Sacred Service agents. Over the years, Porter had helped the LDS Church with background investigations of individuals vetted for leadership—all off the books.  Salt Lake City government played nice with the Mormon Church. Most of the councilmen and police attended LDS Church regularly."

and

"Bradenton showed him the dossier of a few member employees and it had far more information than what he had accessed as a bishop.  It included all the church records of baptism, mission service, temple ordinances, and more. It showed scanned patriarchal blessings, callings held, discipline actions, employment history, background investigations, first generation family genealogy, and a geographical history of all locations the member had attended throughout their life.  Extra fields on one member file Bradenton brought up indicated that church headquarters filed the notes a bishop or stake president had made on worthiness. Porter never knew they filed individual private matters. 

“If you need to know anything about a member, you access the dossier system and search by any relevant term,” said Bradenton. “If further background information is done for employment or higher calling, we put it in here as well.” 

Porter pointed at the screen.  “Why does the church keep so much information members?”

“Wouldn’t you if you needed to know who you can trust to run companies within the portfolio owned by the church?  We need trust so there’s no financial disclosures. Enemies would use it against us.”  "

NOW THE LATEST:  A most recent revelation from an anonymous source inside LDS Church Offices (most of which was posted briefly on reddit) confirms this same information about the Leadership Information System.  The LDS Church keeps extensive background on all members, especially those that rise to be vetted for upper office in its corporation.  And why not?  

I quote extensively, and some of this may be verified in the next 10 days when LDS General Conference is held.  If not, then we have a wee chink in our link at the COB.

" Here's what I can tell you. There are enough people privy to this information that it won't be possible to identify me through this disclosure alone. 

Basically, whenever new General Authorities are being proposed, the names are submitted to our department to do a final "background check"--you can think of it as a kind of "vetting" that is done in politics when Presidential candidates select a VP running mate. We get information consents from the candidate and check everything imaginable: financial, employment, educational, resumes, church callings, political involvement, criminal (never had an issue with this one!), disciplinary councils the candidate has been involved in as a leader. We write up a report flagging any possible areas of concern. For the most part, there are no issues, except for occasional ones that might "look bad" from a secular media perspective. 

They never tell us that these people are being proposed as General Authorities--we just get a generic request for the vetting--but when the next General Conference roll around and we see the people we vetted called ... well, it doesn't take long to figure out what your role is in the machinery. 

Anyway, when an Apostle dies things get a little bit "obvious". For one, the request comes shortly after the death of the apostle. Secondly, rather than a bundle of names as is common to receive, we receive just three names. Thirdly, the submitted names usually contain one or more CURRENT General Authorities. All three of these are red flags to me at least that we are vetting the new Apostle. My suspicions in this regard were confirmed when we vetted Elder Anderson as one of the three candidates in late-2008, shortly after Joseph B. Wirthlin died, and he was subsequently called as the new Apostle in April 2009. I assume that the three names are submitted by the President of the Church, or possibly the First Presidency together, I don't know. 

I'm not exactly sure why we do a second "vetting" in this situation for someone who is already a General Authority and has undergone the process previously. I guess it's probably meant as a type of "fail safe" procedure, to catch anything that was possibly missed the first time around. We also do review what the person has done as their time as a General Authority and flag anything potentially problematic. 

So basically, what I can tell you is that we've recently received a fresh submission to do background checks for three men and we've mostly completed the process. All three are currently General Authorities and are in the Presidency or Quorums of the Seventy. The three are James J. Hamula, Ronald A. Rasband, and L. Whitney Clayton. Clayton's report sent up a few flags [2 & 3], definitely more than the other two, so I would bet against him being called. The reports for Hamula and Rasband were clean and we basically gave them both the thumbs up.  

[While others at the office could be vetting many candidates not listed here...]  At this stage, I see [it likely] that at least one of Hamula or Rasband is called. Since we have another vacancy in the Twelve, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Hamula and Rasband are BOTH called. I'm not sure if we are going to get another three names to vet for the second vacancy, or if they are just going to be happy with having done these three. 

So there you go. Oh--lastly the issue of timing--we won't find out for sure who is called until General Conference in October. I think that that is pretty well understood and accepted by the membership now. In the past, some Apostles have been called in between Conferences, but the last few First Presidencies have thought it best to wait until General Conference in order to maximize attention on the event. 

I find the process a little bit ridiculous and I have often felt like it's weird that the Prophet and First Presidency need us to flag issues of concern for them when they are considering inspired callings. Are the calls inspired? Well, Elder Clayton was being considered [for something], but now I can basically guarantee that he won't be called because of the work I participated in. Can it hardly be said to be inspiration when the decisions are based on paid workers doing research? "

You read it back in 2013 in my novel, and heard it again in 2014 in my talk.  The LIS of the LDS church help them to keep the LIES going.

Now is the day of their power.  They rule reign from the rivers to the ends of the earth. There is none who dares to molest or make afraid.

Monson Vs. Francis -- The Pope and a Prophet

Pope Francis arrived in the US, riding in a Fiat 500L car, priced around  $20,000.

On the other hand, Mormon Prophet Monson rides around in Utah (at the 2011-2014 Days of '47 parade) in much much fancier transportation, including an armored security edition Audi A8 that with full upgrades runs over half a million dollars to buy new.

Pope Francis speaks to human rights, humbly asks leaders to help the poor, and takes selfies.

Monson cuts ribbons at super-malls and kicks off condo-high-rise developments, while only letting professional, LDS photographers take his likeness.

Pope Francis encourages the US government and the world to improve the environment, releases a 40,000 word official statement/encyclical on global climate change, and has proclaimed the environment is just as important many moral issues facing the world

Monson buys up land to develop into profitable industry, lobbies Florida counties for permission on a development at LDS owned Deseret Ranch  "for accommodating a half-million residents on an enormous piece of ranch east of Orlando [that] has triggered an environmental dispute that could be tough for even the state to solve.... The development plan for the 133,000 acres..."

Confidants involved in an environmental impact independent study of the Deseret Ranch fiasco tell me that the part of Deseret Ranch that they want to reclassify as urban is beyond the borders of the urban growth line for Osceola County, and that they "petitioned the county to extend the Urban Growth Boundary into their property so that they can convert this land to a curated cityscape."

Ecologically speaking, Deseret Ranch is a huge piece of the proposed Florida Wildlife Corridor which would provide a movement corridor for imperiled (and un-imperiled) species throughout the state (including black bear, Florida panther, etc.).

Florida counties, probably seeing dollar signs from the potential tax dollars, have been reviewing the LDS corporation proposal. It would seem that it is pretty much set to go.  However,  one of the county commissioners is rumored to have refused to sign off on it until an independent review is conducted.

Pope Francis, in ecumenical cooperation, could you tell Thomas Monson to stop his destruction of the environment?

---

***That being said, I should update that I just saw on the news that Pope Francis took a military helicopter from JFK in NYC to Manhattan. I suppose chartering a plane would have been about as costly, and if he had flown coach, the plane would have been mobbed and a security disaster. But who paid for it?


Addendum:  A reply below is point on.  Neither Pope Francis nor Thomas Monson are anything close to the persona that they claim to worship and desire to emulate.  The character of Jesus Christ as described in the bible didn't ride in gold-plated chariots (the meridian times equivalent of an Audi A8 L or a military helicopter).  Jesus didn't lay his head on silk-spun pillows in elaborate church-owned Vatican cities, nor have multiple homes including an upscale SLC condo near a billion dollar mall he commissioned.

The hypocrisy of both is telling.

Neurosurgeons Are Going To Hell

In seminary this year, some students are learning about Noah's flood.  One student asked the seminary teacher why God killed all the wicked of Noah's time and told Nephi to kill Laban, but spared genocidal mass murderers?

When Nephi was commanded to kill Laban, that it is better that one man perishes than a whole nation “dwindles” in unbelief, God traded the brain of Laban for the brains of a nation.  You see, God could have, in his omnipotent manner slightly, just perceptibly altered the brain of Laban, when he was drunk on the street, so that he forgot all about Nephi and his brothers coming for the Plates of Brass. God can change brain cells.  Easily.

But no.  Free will—the altercation of a few brain cells—was far more untouchable to God than the actual life of Laban.  Nephi had to kill Laban so that God didn’t have to touch Laban’s brain  Yes, he could have eradicated Laban’s memory in his drunken state.  But tinkering with his memory and free will is apparently a bigger line to cross than murdering Laban and completely eradicating his future free will.  As long as Nephi did it.  God is in the clear!

When Noah asked God to spare humanity, it repented God (or if you’re Joseph Smith, it repented Noah to ask God) of thinking of eradicating a billion humans.  (We can safely assume that if in the 6000 years since Noah we went from 8 persons to almost 8 billion, that in the 2000 years of Adam to Noah, there were probably a billion nomadic, sinful, Sodomy filled humans ripe for destruction.)  God would never tamper with so many free wills, so he had to eliminate them.  Lest they sin more and more and become so intellectually godless that they never allow a soul to be saved.

So God killed them all. 

There is no tampering with free will.  Neurosurgeons be warned.  Don’t tamper with those brains. Alter those personalities. Change those temperaments.

For that matter, psychiatrists, psychologist, psychics, sociologists, and even bishops beware.  Wait, bishops are okay to judge and alter members' thinking.  Bishops, seminary teachers, deacon advisors, Miamaid instructors, primary leaders and the like—you’re all fine.  You can alter free will.  You can dive right in and tell a toddler that Joseph Smith was inspired while hiding his polygamy.  You can exact ten-percent of tithing while not declaring that the LDS church is a corporation.  You can send them on "soul saving" missions while knowing that Africans are starving, bone-thin skeletons.  That kind of brain tampering is okey-dokey.

God, however, cannot cross a line of taking away a memory, such as with Laban.  God cannot tinker with free will, such as with a pre-flood billion of humanity.  He must kill them instead.  Hitler too.  Stalin and Mao as well.  Let them kill the masses if their free will gets out of bounds.  Laban—deserved to die.  Stalin, Mao and Hitler, well, they had free will and God couldn’t supersede to have them killed before nations upon nations dwindled in bloody unbelief.  He couldn't intercede to subtly change the mind of mass genocidal murderers.  You understand his godly omnipotence, I’m sure.

But wait, hasn’t God changed memories already?  Isn’t there a verse that says something about the Holy Ghost helping you to remember all things, to “bring all things to your remembrance” (John 14:26)? 

There’s also that story about the Nephite prisoners held by the Lamanites in Alma 55.  Moroni’s guys brought them wine and “they did take of the wine freely”.  Freely—free will.   Shame shame.  Word of wisdom be damned.  The righteous can tempt the evil.   Then the guards in their drunken stupor and deep sleep were unable to stop the escape.  Laban was drunk. Maybe Nephi hadn’t brought the wine, but he found the sword.  With Moroni’s men, however, “the Nephites could have slain them” yet Moroni didn’t want that. 

So wait, God got Nephites to use wine to get the Lamanites stupid.  Surely there’s some kind of free will breech here.  The Lamanites were pretty forgetful about what happened and never really succeeded in winning against the Nephites who were “slow to remember” their past.  The point being, God helped inebriate Lamanites to free Nephites who were slow to remember God.  WTF?

What about the righteous?  Does God play with their free will and memories?  You bet.  It’s a part of the LDS Doctrine that if you ponder on something false, that’s  “not right you …shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong” (D&C 9:9).  In other words, God makes the righteous stupid.  He plays with the free will of the righteous all the time.

Laban—you’re dead dude because you’ll remember to do bad stuff. 

Nephi—you’ll just forget false stuff.

The saying goes, God doesn't play with dice.  Apparently not with scalpels either.

Neurosurgeons, psychiatrists and psychologists who play with memory, you better be a damned good judge of who’s righteous and who’s evil.  You may end up in hell.  God doesn’t play loosely with this stuff like you do.

Hitler, you’re in the clear, apparently, unlike Laban.  At least, that's the message one student got in seminary.