29 thoughts on “Ensign Story By Sex Offender”

  1. As the last comment states from the church headquarters, writers are checked in regards to their backgrounds and validity of their stories. It was unfortunate that the trial came after the background check had been done. Issues are worked on for months before they even go to print and I don’t know how on earth the church would be able to do second and third background checks on everyone who submitted an article to make sure everything was still fine just before the magazine was put to press.

  3. How does this tie into the editors being led by the Spirit.

    Regardless of the chronology, I am surprised they wouldn’t have felt something askew with the author beforehand.

  4. Rick
    You don’t always feel it, or listen to it (the spirit). Perhaps someone did feel something and dismissed it, or perhaps no one felt anything because the Lord decided they should use their noggins in deciding, and stayed out of it.

    Besides that, it’s not an article per se, it’s a story in Latter Day Voices.

  5. 1. What more “due diligence” could they show? They ran a full background check and it came up clean.

    2. Is there something wrong in the content of the article? Does it teach some evil or falsehood?

  7. rick,
    As someone who fell from grace post mission and came back, I know what a theater of the absurd Mormonism came be and I know exactly where to fire the torpedos. Sorry, but this is lame. You’re barrel scraping.

  8. Steve, who’s looking to torpedo anything?

    I was simply saying that gives most molesters are repeat offenders, it surprised me that a person such as this would be able to pass all of the screening required for an author of an article (story) in the premier publication of the church.

    My exact words were “It kind-of blew me away.”

    This is hardly an indictment of the church as a whole, I was just suprised, that’s all.

  9. Today, the Church released its on-line version of the Ensign. The Barabash article is gone. It has been replaced by an article titled, “Groceries or Tithing?” by Charlotte Arnold.

  11. So why not include it in the online version?

    It’s obvious that they felt there was something wrong with the article in hindsite and chose not to publish it online.

  13. No, rick, that isn’t obvious. It appears to me that they’ve simply decided it’s prudent not to continue the association with the author. It’s not the least bit apparent that the Church believes anything was wrong with the article itself.

  14. true enough, but it does reek of a spin-control device, in my never-to-be-mistake-as-humble opinion.

  15. Well, since there appear to be at least some people who are willing to spin this story so as to discredit the Church, and since that spin is unfair, it only makes sense to minimize it. There was nothing wrong with running the article in the first place, and there’s also nothing wrong with running something else in its place.

  16. Itbugaf nails it. The Church is paranoid that people will use facts that occurred after acceptance for publishing to defame the Church.

  17. Tortdog, I don’t even think it amounts to paranoia. Paranoia would be an irrational fear; this one is already substantiated. People are already using it to try to discredit the Church.

  18. Well, I do mostly agree with you. However, I am well aware that the Church administration is a bit too PC for my tastes, e.g., less-active vs. inactive, Sunday evening discussions vs. firesides, exchanges vs. splits.

  20. “George,” I don’t suppose you’re going to offer any explanation of what your last comment was supposed to mean, are you?

  23. George

    You should know by now Kim doesn’t “blacklist” anyone. If you can’t post it’s not his fault. Other people don’t seem to have a problem.

  24. I’ve just dug out our copy of the Ensign. Personally, it is a very uplifting article that does no damage in itself – hence why it was published in the first place. I think it’s great to hear of his re-conversion and his experiences with the missionaries.

    The Church would simply not publish it online, to make a stand that they do not condone his behaviour – funnily enough, this article does not appear in the German Liahona, which contains several Ensign articles.

  25. I don’t see anything wrong with publishing the article. It touched me and helped me realize their feelings and how to help them come back to Christ.

  26. And when all is said and done, at the end of the day, what of the Christian principles of forgiveness & restoration. Is it not true, Mormons do consider themselves Christian. If agreed, then where are these principles exemplified in your critique of the author? He is guilty, yea admittedly so and subsequently convicted though of heinous acts of great moral turpitude indeed. However, does this preclude him of having any thing of genuine goodness/worth to contribute? Does his base or vile conduct, contrary to accepted morals, preclude him from atonement for his sins and therefore receiving forgiveness? We are not the divine intercessors in this matter, and so I would think not!

    Perhaps it was God’s will that the article was published by the Ensign. Perhaps it was also God’s will that Mormons would be exposed to the article. Perhaps instead of being confounded by how it came to occur, Mormons should ponder what it is, which is useful, God intended you should receive from the article.

  27. Realizing this is an old post I thought I’d point out that the link to the article is not functioning anymore. It is one of the top 10 most popular posts so it might warrant taking a look at it.

Comments are closed.