No, I don't really go to the movies anymore. Admittedly I prefer to stick to non-fiction or at least non-dramatized sources for getting up to speed on issues.

Also keep in mind, for me at least, to highlight the authentic motives of the people involved based on their religious convictions doesn't really soften my skeptical stance. So if I look at their religious affiliations (Ballard and Caveizel), I note those are the LDS institution and the Roman Catholic institution.

Off the top of my head, historically these institutions have both been involved with their own versions of:

• fraud

• unethical levels of control of their members

• hypocrisy of all sorts among leadership

• financial corruption

• violent bloodshed by divine mandate (through an appointed authority figure issuing decrees)

• large numbers of cases of sexual abuse accompanied by highly managed coverups

• delusional, outlandish man-made teachings that are justified by claiming direct apostolic authority

Any given individual affiliated with either of these organizations are obviously not necessarily involved with or approving of any of those above practices. They can be the nicest most genuine people in the world. But yet. In context of this topic. For these two figureheads of sex trafficking/abuse and all else that goes with that, to simultaneously be enthusiastic card carrying members of their respective religious institutions, with several points listed above being in direct moral contradiction to their current cause of which they are figureheads, well does it at least raise questions? Has Ballard or Caviezel gone on record to criticize their own institutions for the above criminal and unethical practices? If not, how do we assess their genuine ability to experience and interpret reality and experiences, to investigate, to question authority when it goes against a moral fabric, to not be vulnerable to pressure from higher up authorities, to do and speak what is right and true despite consequences, to not package a message to garner publicity and protect others, etc.

No, I don't really go to the movies anymore. Admittedly I prefer to stick to non-fiction or at least non-dramatized sources for getting up to speed on issues.

Also keep in mind, for me at least, to highlight the authentic motives of the people involved based on their religious convictions doesn't really soften my skeptical stance. So if I look at their religious affiliations (Ballard and Caveizel), I note those are the LDS institution and the Roman Catholic institution.

Off the top of my head, historically these institutions have both been involved with their own versions of:

• fraud

• unethical levels of control of their members

• hypocrisy of all sorts among leadership

• financial corruption

• violent bloodshed by divine mandate (through an appointed authority figure issuing decrees)

• large numbers of cases of sexual abuse accompanied by highly managed coverups

• delusional, outlandish man-made teachings that are justified by claiming direct apostolic authority

Any given individual affiliated with either of these organizations are obviously not necessarily involved with or approving of any of those above practices. They can be the nicest most genuine people in the world. But yet. In context of this topic. For these two figureheads of sex trafficking/abuse and all else that goes with that, to simultaneously be enthusiastic card carrying members of their respective religious institutions, with several points listed above being in direct moral contradiction to their current cause of which they are figureheads, well does it at least raise questions? Has Ballard or Caviezel gone on record to criticize their own institutions for the above criminal and unethical practices? If not, how do we assess the genuine ability to experience and interpret reality and experiences, to investigate, to question authority when it goes against a moral fabric, to do and speak what is right and true despite consequences, to not package a message to garner publicity and protect others, etc.

No, I don't really go to the movies anymore. Admittedly I prefer to stick to non-fiction or at least non-dramatized sources for getting up to speed on issues.

Also keep in mind, for me at least, to highlight the authentic motives of the people involved based on their religious convictions doesn't really soften my skeptical stance. So if I look at their religious affiliations (Ballard and Caveizel), I note those are the LDS institution and the Roman Catholic institution.

Off the top of my head, historically these institutions have both been involved with their own versions of:

fraud

unethical levels of control of their members

hypocrisy of all sorts among leadership

financial corruption

violent bloodshed by divine mandate (through an appointed authority figure issuing decrees)

Large numbers of cases of sexual abuse accompanied by highly managed coverups

delusional, outlandish man-made teachings that are justified by claiming direct apostolic authority

Any given individual affiliated with either of these organizations are obviously not necessarily involved with or approving of any of those above practices. They can be the nicest most genuine people in the world. But yet. In context of this topic. For these two figureheads of sex trafficking/abuse and all else that goes with that, to simultaneously be enthusiastic card carrying members of their respective religious institutions, with several points listed above being in direct moral contradiction to their current cause of which they are figureheads, well does it at least raise questions? Has Ballard or Caviezel gone on record to criticize their own institutions for the above criminal and unethical practices? If not, how do we assess the genuine ability to experience and interpret reality and experiences, to investigate, to question authority when it goes against a moral fabric, to do and speak what is right and true despite consequences, to not package a message to garner publicity and protect others, etc.

No, I don't really go to the movies anymore. Admittedly I prefer to stick to non-fiction or at least non-dramatized sources for getting up to speed on issues.

Also keep in mind, for me at least, to highlight the authentic motives of the people involved based on their religious convictions doesn't really soften my skeptical stance. So if I look at their religious affiliations (Ballard and Caveizel), I note those are the LDS institution and the Roman Catholic institution.

Off the top of my head, historically these institutions have both been involved with their own versions of:

fraud

unethical levels of control of their members

hypocrisy of all sorts among leadership

financial corruption

violent bloodshed by divine mandate (through an appointed authority figure issuing decrees)

Large numbers of cases of sexual abuse accompanied by highly managed coverups

delusional, outlandish man-made teachings that are justified by claiming direct apostolic authority

etc

Any given individual affiliated with either of these organizations are obviously not necessarily involved with or approving of any of those above practices. They can be the nicest most genuine people in the world. But yet. In context of this topic. For these two figureheads of sex trafficking/abuse and all else that goes with that, to simultaneously be enthusiastic card carrying members of their respective religious institutions, with several points listed above being in direct moral contradiction to their current cause of which they are figureheads, well does it at least raise questions? Has Ballard or Caviezel gone on record to criticize their own institutions for the above criminal and unethical practices? If not, how do we assess the genuine ability to experience and interpret reality and experiences, to investigate, to question authority when it goes against a moral fabric, to do and speak what is right and true despite consequences, to not package a message to garner publicity and protect others, etc.

No, I don't really go to the movies anymore. Admittedly I prefer to stick to non-fiction or at least non-dramatized sources for getting up to speed on issues.

Also keep in mind, for me at least, to highlight the authentic motives of the people involved based on their religious convictions doesn't really soften my skeptical stance. So if I look at their religious affiliations (Ballard and Caveizel), I note those are the LDS institution and the Roman Catholic institution.

Off the top of my head, historically these institutions have both been involved with their own versions of:

fraud

unethical levels of control of their members

hypocrisy of all sorts among leadership

financial corruption

violent bloodshed by divine mandate (through an appointed authority figure issuing decrees)

Large numbers of cases of sexual abuse accompanied by highly managed coverups

delusional, outlandish man-made teachings that are justified by claiming direct apostolic authority

etc

Any given individual affiliated with either of these organizations are obviously not necessarily involved with or approving of any of those above practices. They can be the nicest most genuine people in the world. But yet. In context of this topic. For these two figureheads of sex trafficking/abuse and all else that goes with that, to simultaneously be enthusiastic card carrying members of their respective religious institutions, with several points listed above being in direct moral contradiction to their current cause of which they are figureheads, well does it at least raise questions? A genuine ability to assess reality without dogma, investigate, question authority when it goes against a moral fabric, doing and speaking what is right and true despite the consequences instead of garnering publicity, etc.