Posts
Physical and Sexual Abuses at LDS Ranch
January 2nd, 2009 - 01:29 pm PT
consent of his parents. He was 15. He had told his father he refused to go to seminary, a church service for Mormon high-schoolers that began at 6 AM and would be added to the 6 hours of services a week he already attended. This was one of many arguments that led to his parents' decision.
On the morning of February 14th, two men named Paul and Barry entered Eric's house and hustled him out the door. Barry was 6'5" and over 300 pounds. Paul, just as big, turned to him in the white mid-sized rental and said, "You have a choice. You can be cool and get on an airplane with us and be in Utah in a couple of hours, or you can sit back there with handcuffs on for the next 12. We are from the Utah Boys Ranch, Eric, and your parents have asked us to take you with us."
When the child-locks clicked, he saw the familiar houses of his grandmother's street in Agoura Hills pass by as slowly as would the next 3 years in West Jordan.
West Ridge Academy Staff Abuse Work Crew
The first personhe met in Utah was Senator Chris Buttars. He told Eric who he was - politically - and underscored his influence. If he ever wanted to leave he was to do what he said. "Three years might not be enough for you. I can have a judge order you to be here until you are 21," he threatened. With that he sent him off to get "changed and put on work crew."
He was led down a long hall to a room no bigger than a broom closet, stacked to the ceiling with blue, green and brown clothes and told to wrap a thick, itchy blanket around his waist like a towel and wear it like a dress.
He was then given a "leash" made of climbing rope and walked like a dog towards a cluster of 12 other boys. They were lined up facing a wall while two large men in red sweatshirts watched them from chairs off to the side.
Some of the boys had camouflage pants on, a few others wore dresses, and the blanket skirts were intended to prevent those on the crew from running away. Eric's leash was handed to Brent, known disparagingly as Captain America. Eric turned to the boy standing to his right and asked him how long he had been here, but before he could finish, his forehead careened into the carpeted wall in front of him.
"Are you talking on my work crew, boy?" a red-shirted man screamed, kicking Eric behind my knees to send him to the floor.
"Don't look at me. Don't look around. Don't you MOVE without permission! You don't do anything without permission! If you talk, I think you are talking about running away, and I will restrain you. Do you understand?" Eric nodded.
His filthy digit tasted like rust and fish. "I can hurt you without leaving any marks," Brent growled as he put his finger in Eric's mouth, and pulled back on his cheek. He pulled him up by the rope lassoed around his waist.
The wool army blanket he had fashioned as a skirt had shifted askew and hestood there in boxers bleeding from his nose. His green Utah Boys Ranch (UBR) T-shirt had been ridiculously stretched. He wanted out of this "classroom", immediately.
More Self-Help Articles
- Guide Dog Schools & Training ProcessPupply Raisers, Typical Commands & Handlers
- Meditation, Self-Talk to Reduce AnxietySlow Breathing, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
- False Accusations: Exceptional CasesIMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn
- Positive Thought and Laws of Attraction7 Steps to Visualize Goals & Remain Grateful
- Interacting w/ Guide Dog, Blind HandlerAllowing a Trained Canine to Assist Its Owner
TOOLBAR
Need a short url to tell a friend or add to twitter
http://orato.com/9det
COMMENTS
1) my son absolutely hated going to church, attending Scouts (which he had loved before going to the ward that we transferred to.)
2) the constant pressure of finding a husband. I have since remarried and he has nothing to do woth the Mormon church.
3) trying to force my husband into joining.
4) their stand on homosexuality, look at Proposition 8 that just passed on California.
and many other reasons. Is there anyway for you to get an investigation going on this. This should not have ever been tolerated!
I wish you healing and a better place.
CratyGal
If you took some time to research this issue, you would find that the connection is both undeniable and more than just incidental:
the board of directors is comprised of prominent LDS families - two Utah Mormon politicians, and the director of religion at BYU, for crying out loud!
There are LDS employees on campus, so what do you call that? Four missionaries, two seminary teachers, a bishopric?
The LDS church is the biggest financier of this establishment. 100% of the staff is LDS.
All this, and more information is readily available at the website mormongulag.com
Amanda, I understand the knee-jerk reaction to defend the faith, but your comment comes across more obtuse than anything else.
-------
It is factual to say that the LDS Church does not own and/or operate the UBR/West Ridge Academy. It is not in any way misleading. Rather, it is you who is misleading the reading public.
KP: If you took some time to research this issue, you would find that the connection is both undeniable and more than just incidental:
------
There is indeed an undeniable 'connection' -- over 95% of the UBR employees are LDS members. That's it. And ZERO UBR employees are LDS Church employees. Not one.
KP: the board of directors is comprised of prominent LDS families - two Utah Mormon politicians, and the director of religion at BYU, for crying out loud!
------
Yes. It is amazing that they have not taken a more active role to discover the atrocities that you have described. Perhaps someone can point them to this article? Your difficulty in communicating honestly, precisely and in a balanced way on what transpired probably means they'll never take you seriously, unfortunately.
KP: There are LDS employees on campus, so what do you call that? Four missionaries, two seminary teachers, a bishopric?
-----
What employees are on campus? Name one. missionaries are not living on campus. Missionaries are not paid by the Church. Seminary teachers ARE paid by the Church, and ARE Church employees. Are they on campus? They put in maybe 6 hours a day, tops, at their work. Are you saying that they are a part of the UBR? Did you object to any of their behaviors? You left them ENTIRELY out of your article. Why is that? A bishopric is a volunteer group and none of them are paid by the Church. Are they on the campus?
KP: The LDS church is the biggest financier of this establishment. 100% of the staff is LDS.
------
The first statement is absolutely false and untrue. It costs an arm & a leg to get your kid in there, and I'm talking money that the PARENTS pay. The DI (owned by the LDS Church) donates stuff like furniture and clothing to the UBR, but that's hardly 'financing'. One would think if you were going to make such an accusation, you'd have something to back it up. But you don't, not even on your website. Nothing at all. If you have the information, I'd think you'd share it. And are you sure about the 100% LDS staff figure?
KP: All this, and more information is readily available at the website mormongulag.com
------
Not nearly good enough to get people to believe your biased and one-sided account.
I have been to the Ranch several times, mostly to visit my nephew that worked there for about 6 months in 2007. He's a great guy who as a youth was involved in gangs. He's straightened himself out now, has a wife and kid, and is in college headed for a career in law enforcement. An awesome man.
I know a kid in my neighborhood who was there at the UBR in the early 2000's. He had pulled a knife on a scout leader, plus lots of other crap. He spent a year there, I think, and it really turned him around. He is a great young man today. I took him to a Father-and-Son's outing after he got out of UBR, and he was very well behaved. Even thanked me (in a very heart-touching way) for trusting him enough to go with me and my boys to the campout.
I think there is more than one side to this story, KP.
"Factual?" Hardly.
Equivocating over semantics isn't going to change the simple fact that this is a Mormon facility, and everyone in the know knows it.
Listen, I understand the knee-jerk reaction, but you should really be talking to your church leaders about this if you don't like the association. I don't like it either.
The simple fact is that this IS a Mormon facility and if you want to argue about who is named on the property's deed, well feel free. Let's take a look at who is misleading the reading public.
Amanda/HiJolly wrote: "There is indeed an undeniable 'connection' -- over 95% of the UBR employees are LDS members. That's it. And ZERO UBR employees are LDS Church employees. Not one."
I suppose I could rest my case. Are seminary teachers not LDS Church employees? Aren't they employed by CES? Right, I thought so. Just because missionaries work without salary does not mean they aren't sanctioned by the LDS Church. Are you kidding me? So correcting your statement would be the intellectually honest thing to do - AT LEAST SIX employees of the UBR are officially employed by the LDS Church. That much is fact. Four full-time missionaries, two seminary teachers (maybe more now). And another correction you ought to make: 100% of the staff there are LDS.
Amanda/HiJolly:
"Yes. It is amazing that they have not taken a more active role to discover the atrocities that you have described. Perhaps someone can point them to this article? Your difficulty in communicating honestly, precisely and in a balanced way on what transpired probably means they'll never take you seriously, unfortunately."
First of all, I think you are confusing me with the author of this article. Second of all, I noticed you have registered twice on this website simply to post comments on this article. You seem to be the one worried about not being taken seriously, or someone taking Eric seriously.
Amanda/HiJolly:
"What employees are on campus? Name one."
I named SIX. Not including the Bishopric assigned to the Utah Boys Ranch. Seriously, why go to such lengths to deny such simple facts.
Amanda/HiJolly:
"[M]issionaries are not living on campus. Missionaries are not paid by the Church."
Are you serious? Do you see where this is going, folks? Missionaries are not paid by the Church, so they must not be Mormon. Wow. Cognitive dissonance at its best.
Amanda/HiJolly:
"Seminary teachers ARE paid by the Church, and ARE Church employees. Are they on campus? They put in maybe 6 hours a day, tops, at their work."
Yes, they are on campus. Shouldn't you know these things before laying your reputation (maybe not) on the line in a die-hard defense of institutionalized child abuse?
Amanda/HiJolly:
"Are you saying that they are a part of the UBR?"
Yes, I am saying that. Shouldn't you know this?
Amanda/HiJolly:
"Did you object to any of their behaviors? You left them ENTIRELY out of your article."
Again, I think you are confusing me with the author of the article. I am not. But I see you are doing what is called "shifting the goal posts" - an apologetic tactic - from your rather steadfast "there are ZERO church employees" to "did you object to any of their behaviors?" Will you finally concede that the Church is involved with this place?
Amanda/HiJolly:
"A bishopric is a volunteer group and none of them are paid by the Church."
Are you really going to try and say that a MORMON bishopric is not a Church entity? Are you really willing to carry your sophistry that far? Because we both know that would be nothing less than a lie.
Amanda/HiJolly:
"Are they on the campus?"
Yes. Wouldn't someone with your familiarity with the Utah Boys Ranch know that?
Amanda/HiJolly:
"It costs an arm & a leg to get your kid in there, and I'm talking money that the PARENTS pay. The DI (owned by the LDS Church) donates stuff like furniture and clothing to the UBR, but that's hardly 'financing'."
Again, clearly, you don't know what you are talking about. The LDS Church pays for the families can't afford the tuition from the "Fast Offerings" fund. Not all of the parents can afford the three thousand dollar monthly tuition. The LDS Church - via Deseret Industries - contributes more than just clothing and furniture, it supplies the facility with its food. Consider what a massive undertaking feeding that many kids is.
Amanda/HiJolly:
"One would think if you were going to make such an accusation, you'd have something to back it up. But you don't, not even on your website.
I am not the author of the article, but I am certain that I can substantiate any claim that I have made about the Utah Boys Ranch. But you seem dead-set on defending this place, which frankly I find rather disturbing. You seem willing to be misleading in discussing the basic LDS connection with this place, so what other truths are you willing to bend in what you consider defending your faith?
If I were you, I would peruse the testimonials at www.mormongulag.com and perhaps contact the author of this article to discuss his motivations for writing it. Before you come out swinging and making false statements that damage your credibility, equivocating and tipping your cards so that all the readers can see you have a vested interest in defending your faith and not what is right.
From the Website of the boys who wrote this story
"Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that the Mormon leaders have any knowledge of the abusive, unethical, and illegal operations of the Utah Boys Ranch. Actually, we believe the opposite."
Prominent LDS Families are not the same thing as the LDS Church.
I know some prominent LDS Families that I would never trust my dog to let alone my kids. They are JUST MEMBERS they are not in leadership of the church.
2ndly Politicians also are not the same thing as the LDS Church the also are JUST MEMBERS
The Board is currently made up of
1 Former Legislator
1 Teacher of religion (not the director of religion) from BYU
The LDS Prophet, nor any of the 12 apostles, nor any of the 70's, nor any other Leader of my church is on that Board, nor involved in the running of the ranch afaik.
All I can find on the funding of the Ranch is that it is funded from private donations, and insurance payments, and parental tuition, and that Deseret Industries gives them some food and supplies not money.
The very boys-men who are talking about abuses believe that the leadership of the LDS Church have no knowledge of what is going on. They seem to state over and over that this is the work of a few really bad people. As for having a LDS Branch (congregation) EVERY place where there is even 1 LDS person there is a congregation with a Bishop (branch president) and missionaries, and any other church program that is wanted-needed. There are such congregations in every prision in the world that allows it and has LDS memebers incarcerated.
Church doctrine and the Bishop's Handbook of instructions (which can be found on Wikileaks) all state that abuse should be reported. And the LDS Church has set up a 24hr help line to help the local leaders know what to do about it, and that all abuse is to be reported to a Stake President (higher up leader)
All leaked internal church documents support this statement.
Like I said I would LOVE to see a FULL investigation to find the facts from the fiction.
The LDS Church does not condone abuse. It does happen in the LDS church though (as much as i wish it didn't)
If the what these people say is true then the place should be shut down!
the Source documents I got this information from are located below. I recommend that people inform themselves and make up their own mind.
http://www.mormongulag.com/
http://westridgeacademy.com/Index.html
http://wikileaks.org/leak/mormon-han...tions-1999.pdf
"Factual?" Hardly.
Equivocating over semantics isn't going to change the simple fact that this is a Mormon facility, and everyone in the know knows it.
-----
Semantics become exceptionally important, when seeking to reach mutual understanding. When you say "Mormon facility", you mean (because you've already stated it in previous posts) that it is financed by the Church. That is false, is a lie, is untrue, and you have not provided one idota of evidence to support the ludicrous claim. You cannot, because it is NOT TRUE. Instead, you attempt a logical fallacy in stating that since the people involved are LDS, therefore the INSTITUTION of the Church is responsible. This is ridiculous and untrue.
KP: Listen, I understand the knee-jerk reaction, but you should really be talking to your church leaders about this if you don't like the association. I don't like it either.
The simple fact is that this IS a Mormon facility and if you want to argue about who is named on the property's deed, well feel free. Let's take a look at who is misleading the reading public.
------
So. Who is on the property's deed? You brought it up. Better provide evidence, though. Your credibility is shot all to heck, already.
KP: Amanda/HiJolly wrote: "There is indeed an undeniable 'connection' -- over 95% of the UBR employees are LDS members. That's it. And ZERO UBR employees are LDS Church employees. Not one."
I suppose I could rest my case. Are seminary teachers not LDS Church employees? Aren't they employed by CES? Right, I thought so. Just because missionaries work without salary does not mean they aren't sanctioned by the LDS Church. Are you kidding me? So correcting your statement would be the intellectually honest thing to do - AT LEAST SIX employees of the UBR are officially employed by the LDS Church. That much is fact. Four full-time missionaries, two seminary teachers (maybe more now). And another correction you ought to make: 100% of the staff there are LDS.
----
You really should give up and quit whilst you may. But whatever.
Missionaries are not employed by ANYONE, period. Yet you claim they are. FALSE. It's a lie. A stupid lie, at that. *I* should be resting *my* case. (sigh) And then to pile on the BS with the claim of FOUR Full time missionaries there at the Ranch. You mean dedicated? LoL. I guess you've got nothing left to lose, so you may as well claim they are all ritually sacrificing 'bad boys' lives to the full moon whilst you're at it. Watch out for dem scary, scary Marmins!! ROFL.
And while CES employees are indeed employed by the Church (which I mentioned before) you have not demonstrated nor provided evidence that they are employed by the UBR. If they are paid by the Church, then they are not paid by the UBR. And vise versa. That's SOP in the CES, and you have not shown any evidence to support your claims. Feel free, KP. And again, you ASSERT that 100% of the staff are LDS. Maybe. But why do you believe that to be true? Demonstrate the truth of it, if you will. You made the claim. *I* guessed at "over 95%" to be safe. Guess you don't care about 'safe'. All I asked for was some evidence to support your 100% claim. (*crickets chirping*)
KP: Amanda/HiJolly:
"Yes. It is amazing that they have not taken a more active role to discover the atrocities that you have described. Perhaps someone can point them to this article? Your difficulty in communicating honestly, precisely and in a balanced way on what transpired probably means they'll never take you seriously, unfortunately."
First of all, I think you are confusing me with the author of this article. Second of all, I noticed you have registered twice on this website simply to post comments on this article. You seem to be the one worried about not being taken seriously, or someone taking Eric seriously.
-----
I did assume you were the same person. My bad. I least I can admit my mistakes... How do I see the 'double' registration? Curious.
And I'm not Amanda, I'm a guy. And I live in West Jordan, and I didn't vote for Mr. Buttars, either. You are stereo-typing me and aren't even careful enough to avoid the false accusation that I and Amanda are the same person. The Site administrators know. But you don't. LoL. I only got one email confirming my registration, fwiw. (shrugs)
I am sure that Eric had a terrible experience. And I'm saddened that it went so poorly for him. But all this business about the Church being responsible is just so much hooey that I couldn't just leave. Yup, I felt I had to speak up and call you on the BS. And the way you got personal on Amanda (whomever she is) didn't leave me any warm fuzzies, either.
KP: Amanda/HiJolly:
"What employees are on campus? Name one."
I named SIX. Not including the Bishopric assigned to the Utah Boys Ranch. Seriously, why go to such lengths to deny such simple facts.
------
Semantics, again. You didn't name any. See, they are important. AND AGAIN, the Bishopric are NOT employees of the Church! Sheesh.
KP: Amanda/HiJolly:
"[M]issionaries are not living on campus. Missionaries are not paid by the Church."
Are you serious? Do you see where this is going, folks? Missionaries are not paid by the Church, so they must not be Mormon. Wow. Cognitive dissonance at its best.
-------
Ahhhahhhaahahaha! "cog dis"!!!! Oh, you are fun. Of course the missionaries are Mormon. YOU claimed they were paid employees. That's false. Double sheesh.
KP: Amanda/HiJolly:
"Seminary teachers ARE paid by the Church, and ARE Church employees. Are they on campus? They put in maybe 6 hours a day, tops, at their work."
Yes, they are on campus. Shouldn't you know these things before laying your reputation (maybe not) on the line in a die-hard defense of institutionalized child abuse?
----
ROFL. You are funny. "die-hard defense of institutionalized child abuse"? Well, I suppose I can see how this makes sense from your claims made previously, but unfortunately you are incorrect on so much that, taken all together, it's just ridiculous. I would not defend child abuse, KP. You seem to want the reading public to believe that I eat children for dessert. R-i-g-h-t------
KP: Amanda/HiJolly:
"Are you saying that they are a part of the UBR?"
Yes, I am saying that. Shouldn't you know this?
-----
Please explain how they are a part. Do they live there? Who pays them? Please, inquiring minds want to know.
KP: Amanda/HiJolly:
"Did you object to any of their behaviors? You left them ENTIRELY out of your article."
Again, I think you are confusing me with the author of the article. I am not. But I see you are doing what is called "shifting the goal posts" - an apologetic tactic - from your rather steadfast "there are ZERO church employees" to "did you object to any of their behaviors?" Will you finally concede that the Church is involved with this place?
-----
Well ok, glad to know you're not the author. I'll keep that in mind, as long as you keep in mind I'm not "shifting the goal posts" or whatever. So did you spend time there at the Ranch? Or have I been there more than you have? The seminary teachers are NOT employees of the Ranch. You should know that, yet you seem not to. That's bogus, KP.
Your original claim was NOT that the Church was merely involved, but that it paid employees of the Ranch, and financed the Ranch. Both those claims are FALSE.
kP: Amanda/HiJolly:
"A bishopric is a volunteer group and none of them are paid by the Church."
Are you really going to try and say that a MORMON bishopric is not a Church entity? Are you really willing to carry your sophistry that far? Because we both know that would be nothing less than a lie.
-----
Again, what we have here is the pot calling the kettle 'black'. You are the one changing the claims, here. You didn't claim that the bishopric was a Church entity (which is true enough), you claimed it was paid for or financed by the Church. This is not true. Anyone who knows anything about Mormons knows that the Bishop and his councelors are not paid by the Church. Nice jab on the "sophistry" thing. I love you, too. :-)
KP: Amanda/HiJolly:
"Are they on the campus?"
Yes. Wouldn't someone with your familiarity with the Utah Boys Ranch know that?
-----
Just visited a few times, KP, didn't get the chance to live there. How is it that you know so much that ain't so?
KP: Amanda/HiJolly:
"It costs an arm & a leg to get your kid in there, and I'm talking money that the PARENTS pay. The DI (owned by the LDS Church) donates stuff like furniture and clothing to the UBR, but that's hardly 'financing'."
Again, clearly, you don't know what you are talking about. The LDS Church pays for the families can't afford the tuition from the "Fast Offerings" fund. Not all of the parents can afford the three thousand dollar monthly tuition. The LDS Church - via Deseret Industries - contributes more than just clothing and furniture, it supplies the facility with its food. Consider what a massive undertaking feeding that many kids is.
----
It is possible that the Church might help out parents in the way you suggest, but I have no evidence that any such thing has occurred. Do you? You *claim* that the Church finances UBR. But still, no evidence. And no retraction.
http://www.providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html I wasn't aware that the DI dealt in food. I have been there hundreds of times, both as a customer and a volunteer, and never saw any food there. Please tell me more. Really.
KP: Amanda/HiJolly:
"One would think if you were going to make such an accusation, you'd have something to back it up. But you don't, not even on your website.
I am not the author of the article, but I am certain that I can substantiate any claim that I have made about the Utah Boys Ranch. But you seem dead-set on defending this place, which frankly I find rather disturbing. You seem willing to be misleading in discussing the basic LDS connection with this place, so what other truths are you willing to bend in what you consider defending your faith?
----
You claimed the LDS church supported, even financed the UBR. You are wrong. That is THE reason I registered and commented. Period. I had no comment about the article, it was clearly a distressing experience for the author and was written from that point of view. OK. Your attack of Amanda, though, using false accusations of the LDS Church, yeah, that was worthy of my comment. So I did. Your lies should not go unchallenged, and though Amanda is clearly doing just fine in her own defense, nevertheless I didn't care for your misrepresentations and lies.
My understanding is that most of the funds for the Ranch, if not all, come from private sources. My faith is not in the Boy's Ranch. It is in Jesus Christ, and also to a great extent in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You threaten nothing but the gullibility of the public.
KP: If I were you, I would peruse the testimonials at www.mormongulag.com and perhaps contact the author of this article to discuss his motivations for writing it. Before you come out swinging and making false statements that damage your credibility, equivocating and tipping your cards so that all the readers can see you have a vested interest in defending your faith and not what is right.
-----
My faith is just fine, thank you very much. I read the entire site and it was sadly lacking in substance. I don't doubt that regrettable things have happened at the Ranch. Let me share some thoughts with you that were recently posted in the West Jordan Yahoo site, RE: this Orato article:
-----
I've been to the boy's ranch several times and talked with a lot of people
who work there regularly. I can say I trust Eric Norwood's perspective
about as far as I can throw him. He appears to be a very disturbed and
bitter [man].
If there really was anything illegal going on, by definition the authorities
have legal authority to intervene and stop it. More likely than not is that
his claims of impropriety could not be substantiated if it was attempted.
R S.
-----
I must comment regarding Trapped In A Mormon Gulag by Eric Norwood. My son was a resident at the Utah Boys Ranch when Eric was there. My husband and I know Eric, as well as some of the boys and staff he mentions throughout the article. Most of the information contained in that article is exaggerated information or fabricated. For example, he mentions dealings with several boys who WEREN'T there when he was in treatment. Other examples of fabrication include "digging ditches with spoons", using "IcyHot on their genitals to curb homosexual tendencies", "suicides", and the list goes on, but what sticks out in my mind is what are Eric's motivations?
I also question who was the actual writer of this article. It is highly unlikely he wrote the article. Is there a movie in the making? Again, what are Eric's motivations? We volunteered for six years at the Boys Ranch, and we were involved with several of their programs, and that kind of treatment did not happen. My husband did a ten-week internship there for his Bachelor's and did not witness what Eric talks about. So please don't take one disgruntled boy's view, who has been out of the program for more than six or seven years, with much weight. Thank you.
R. D.
-----
I agree with [R.D.].
I have been out to the boys ranch (official name: West Ridge Academy) many
times. I've met and talked with Buttars about the ranch. I did so before he
was elected years ago. I've spoken with at least one young man who was out
at the Utah Boys Ranch for a while--and his parents. I've spoken with
volunteers and clergy about their experiences at and with the ranch--and
specifically with Buttars.
In all of that talking for years, since before Buttars was ever a Utah
Senator until today, the worst anyone ever said of Buttars was a young man
who said, "He's okay, but he yells a lot." This comment was made outside the
ranch, and the youth was at complete liberty to say whatever he wanted to. I
was the only one within earshot. I was looking for negatives about Buttars
because I didn't want surprises if I was going to support his candidacy.
The author, presumably Eric Norwood, clearly wants to discredit Buttars.
Unfortunately, he's got several incorrect bits of information.
1) The ranch is funded by private donations--not solely by the LDS Church. I
do not have information on how much the LDS Church financially donates--if
anything. However, I do know that several banks and businesses are regularly
solicited due to Buttars connections. Families are required provide a large
chunk of the funding for their own child. That's spelled out in the
admission forms that parents sign. (Norwood, of course wouldn't have been
privy to how the ranch was funded--so I won't call him a liar, just
uninformed.)
2) The LDS Church supplies volunteers to serve as leaders and missionaries
at the request of the ranch administration. The BSA also supplies volunteers
(and one requisite professional scouter at the council level).
3) Norwood has some credibility issues in his tale... I'll not enumerate all
of them at this time... but will refer the reader to:
http://www.utahboysranch.org/Admissions/Admissions.html admission criteria
http://www.utahboysranch.org/Downloads/Admissions/Admissions%20Packet.pdf
Note the financial portions
D. F.
-----
Maybe D. F. needs to talk with you, hey?
HiJolly
HiJolly, or whoever you are, might I suggest a website like www.mormonapologetics.org or www.mormondiscussions.com if you are seeking spirited debate. You have exhausted thousands of words in your posts, and what is your point exactly? That the Mormon Church has nothing to do with this facility? Something, but not much? That the author is an evil anti-Mormon liar? That anyone who doubts the sanctity of West Ridge Academy is a liar? Please, what is your point, exactly? I've given you two comments to get there, and you can't seem to do it. So let's have it please.
"When you say "Mormon facility", you mean (because you've already stated it in previous posts) that it is financed by the Church. That is false, is a lie, is untrue, and you have not provided one idota of evidence to support the ludicrous claim. You cannot, because it is NOT TRUE. Instead, you attempt a logical fallacy in stating that since the people involved are LDS, therefore the INSTITUTION of the Church is responsible. This is ridiculous and untrue."
Several things are ridiculous, stating that this is a Mormon facility is not one of them. What is ridiculous is for you to tell me what I "mean" when I say something so that you can attack that. Do you know what that is called, student? A "straw man" argument, a logical fallacy. I never said that the Utah Boys Ranch was financed by the Church entirely but in order for you to argue against that you decide to tell me that that is what I meant. Sorry, but that is ridiculous and I'm not going to waste my time entertaining your attempt at amateur apologetics.
Do you really expect me to waste as much time as you have responding to arguments about statements I never made, like this real whopper of a lie:
"Missionaries are not employed by ANYONE, period. Yet you claim they are. FALSE. It's a lie. A stupid lie, at that."
What you should be saying, in fact, is that you were mistaken to have assumed this, or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are mistaken.
I have never seen anyone claim, let alone myself, that missionaries are paid. This is why I won't continue to entertain your baloney, only to comment that I was at the Utah Boys Ranch - for 7 months - and I strongly support the website www.mormongulag.com and the author of this article.
I am not here to argue with disgruntled amateur apologists who can't seem to honestly restate and respond to anything I've said.
"And while CES employees are indeed employed by the Church (which I mentioned before) you have not demonstrated nor provided evidence that they are employed by the UBR."
LOL!!!!
I said: I named SIX. Not including the Bishopric assigned to the Utah Boys Ranch. Seriously, why go to such lengths to deny such simple facts.
"Again. LOL!!! What, you want their full names? LOL! Why would I do that? How would you even verify they are there. How about this, you call the Utah Boys Ranch and ASK them if there are any missionaries you can speak with. I'm not going to disclose the names of anyone that was there while I was there."
I do suggest you look up the word "semantics" though, just because you learned a new word doesn't mean you have to use it all on the first shot ;)
Let's see if you are as good at admitting your mistakes as you say you are:
"Of course the missionaries are Mormon. YOU claimed they were paid employees. That's false. Double sheesh."
Again, this is a Call For Reference - where did I say missionaries "were paid employees."
I'll expect a "double" apology, since you had to "double sheesh" me.
"Well ok, glad to know you're not the author. I'll keep that in mind, as long as you keep in mind I'm not "shifting the goal posts" or whatever. So did you spend time there at the Ranch?"
You were, in fact, shifting the goal posts. I suggest googling the term if you are unfamiliar with it. It is not an insult, merely an observation. Yes, I was at the Utah Boys Ranch for seven months.
"The seminary teachers are NOT employees of the Ranch. You should know that, yet you seem not to. That's bogus, KP."
Really? There were two seminary teachers that worked at the Ranch during my seven months there. I graduated from Seminary from West Ridge Academy. I don't see how you can imply that they are not employees of the Ranch, unless you mean that they get their paycheck directly from the Church Education System. If that is what you mean by employee, that is absolutely true. Then they are employees of the Mormon Church who work at the Utah Boys Ranch. This, HiJolly, is quintessential equivocation. Like I said, you need to take it to a religious apologetic discussion board, not here.
Again, you use a straw man argument:
"You didn't claim that the bishopric was a Church entity (which is true enough), you claimed it was paid for or financed by the Church. This is not true. Anyone who knows anything about Mormons knows that the Bishop and his councelors are not paid by the Church. Nice jab on the "sophistry" thing. I love you, too. :-)"
Also, it's not clear that you understand what the word "sophistry" means.
"Just visited a few times, KP, didn't get the chance to live there. How is it that you know so much that ain't so?"
I more than just visited a few times, I lived there.
"And no retraction."
I've said nothing false that needs retracting. If I do, I will.
"I wasn't aware that the DI dealt in food. I have been there hundreds of times, both as a customer and a volunteer, and never saw any food there. Please tell me more. Really."
Wow. You really are uninformed. You must not live in West Jordan, or Utah at all, if you think that. I drank milk with a "Deseret Industry" label on it everyday for seven months. This is ridiculous.
"My faith is not in the Boy's Ranch. It is in Jesus Christ, and also to a great extent in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You threaten nothing but the gullibility of the public."
The irony contained on that statement will probably be lost on you, but hopefully others will get it. You mention that your "faith is just fine" twice, even though I never questioned that. That seems a rather odd statement to make out of the blue.
"Let me share some thoughts with you that were recently posted in the West Jordan Yahoo site, RE: this Orato article:"
All those comments are meaningless, HiJolly, without an actual link. What's the matter, afraid we'll read things in the proper context?
"Maybe D. F. needs to talk with you, hey?"
Yes, he certainly does. Of course your post would be moot if the readers got to see those comments in context, you however, the Erin Brockovich of the web, won't supply a link. That's weird, don't ya think?
I did want to address one last claim that was made. KP claims that Fast offering money was used to support the ranch and that this proved that the LDS Church endorses, or operates the facility. Once again I'm going to refer to the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions.
"The bishop uses fast offerings to provide necessities to needy members. With these funds the
bishop may provide food, clothing, shelter, medical assistance, or other life-sustaining
aid."
"Assist with Necessities. The Church helps needy members by providing the goods and services
they need to sustain life."(page 14)
While it is possible that a bishop used money from the fast offerings to help pay to send a boy to the ranch, this would not prove that the ranch is sponsored-operated-endorsed by the LDS Church. It would prove that the bishop thought that the family needed charity and believed that this was the best way to provide it. If the bishop had chosen to buy the family groceries from Walmart instead it would not mean that the LDS Church endorses Walmart.
The Handbook goes on to talk about Church sponsored-endorsed organizations including LDS Family Services, the Boy Scouts of America, and CES. The Utah Boys Ranch is never mentioned as one of them. It also advises that a bishop use church sponsored-endorsed resources where available, and is very careful to caution bishops about only using licensed and credentialed resources.
All this can be found at this link.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Mormon_Church_Handbook_of_Instructions_(1999)
If the boys-men who are making the accusations against The Utah Boy's Ranch really wanted to change things I would suggest that they go to the licensing boards of the people that they claim abused them and file complaints against them. Licensing boards always investigate, and are quick to clean house as no profession like to have it's name brought down by harmful practices . However, if untrue leveling these accusations to a governmental board would be considered defamation of character, and they would be liable for any damages.
I have been very careful to not to state my opinion as to the accusations that have been made, as it makes no difference in the factual matter of the LDS Church's involvement with the Utah Boy's Ranch. I appreciate all the kind things said by other posters. I believe knowledge is free, that people should look at the all the facts, then decide for themselves, and not be overly swayed by anyone's opinion. You can not judge any group by the failings or success of individuals, as we are all human, and we all have strengths and weaknesses.
The fact of the matter is, The Utah Boys Ranch/West Ridge Academy is a Mormon facility. In fact, the only people arguing that it isn't are people who have no experience with the ranch.
A Mormon chapel is built on campus, equipped with a Sacrament table and other features unique to a Mormon house of worship. That is why four full-time missionaries are there.
Saying that it is not a Mormon facility is worse then saying that Evergreen (http://www.evergreeninternational.org/) is not a Mormon facility. It is laughable.
That being said, I'd like to point you to a quote from the website www.mormongulag.com:
"It is our hope that Church members will continue to support us and do what they can to help distance themselves from this place.
As one former victim put it, this is a “plea to our church leaders to publicly condemn” this awful place."
You also said that church leaders have nothing to do with this place, which is patently false.
The PRESIDENT of the Mormon church has mentioned the Utah Boys Ranch before!
Come on.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Handbook of Instructions is the LDS Church's guiding document for Stakes, Wards, and Branches. In it is spelled out all of the inner workings of what and how local LDS Church officials should carry out their positions. It is far from obscure. If you had bothered to go look at the documentation for yourself you would have seen that.
As for there being a chapel built there... SO WHAT? There is an LDS Chapel on military bases of many different countries, that doesn't mean that the LDS Church endorses the Military or that country. It only means that there are members of the LDS Church present there. By your logic the LDS Church runs the military of many countries, and the jails, and long term care facilities, Hospice centers, Native Reservations..... I have already explained how that works, and backed it with documentation.
Your right a President of the LDS Church did mention it. and now for some context to that statement. This is the reference that you are talking about.
"There came to my desk recently a bulletin issued by the Utah Boys Ranch. It included the story of a boy named Mike. A judge of the juvenile court wrote concerning him:
“Mike, at the age of 9 years, was sleeping in cars, associating with gangs and involving himself with dangerous weapons. No state agency could help this young boy turn his life around. The Utah Boys Ranch stepped forward and offered their help. The Boys Ranch saved his life. They gave him a place to live and taught him values and standards. His environment and world changed and now he is out of the Juvenile Justice system.”
Included also was a letter from Mike himself which reads:
“Hi. This is Mike. I had a bad childhood where I grew up. I was in a gang that was bad. I came to this place. I’m glad that I came to this place ‘cause if I didn’t come here I would still be in gangs and getting in trouble. I was so glad that I came here ‘cause I met some good people like Chris and Delpha. But now I have a family and I am doing good” (Utah Boys Ranch, New Beginnings Round-up, fall 1996, 1).
There are so many who have been injured and who need a good Samaritan to bind up their wounds and help them on their way. A small kindness can bring a great blessing to someone in distress and a sweet feeling to the one who befriends him." (from an address in 1996 Gordon B. Hinkley)
So, the ranch sent the LDS President a letter.... and... this proves he knew about the abuses, and was involved in them how? Oh, wait it doesn't. I mean it's a nice bit of slander, I'm impressed, but it's nothing more then that.
You have yet to prove with any substance that I am wrong, that the leaders of the LDS Church know what is going on, or had any part in the alleged abuse. I restate the theory given on the website that this is a private organization that has been accused of abuse, and misusing the teachings of the LDS Church, that is not following the counsel of the leaders of the church and nothing more then that.
Once again, because you are clearly not reading what I'm saying. If the accusations are true then of course the community, and the LDS Church should distance itself from the Utah Boys Ranch. Once again I encourage you to go to the licensing boards in the state of Utah to make claims against the people who you claim have harmed you. Let a full investigation be started. You really should have no problem with doing that if what you say is true.
How do I know your response is simply a knee jerk reaction from a Mormon who feels "persecuted"? This sort of wrongheadedness.
Let's ask a few basic questions and see if you can answer them honestly:
1. How many military bases JUST have LDS chapels on them?
2. How many military bases or other similar facilities have four missionaries assigned to them?
3. How many military bases or other similar facilities require soldiers or students to read the Book of Mormon?
4. How many military bases or other similar facilities have only LDS employees working there?
If you are honest, you should have answered "none" to all of the above. What does that tell you?
That this facility is unique in its connection to Mormonism? I should say so.
Like I said before, your defensiveness is obtuse. Not one person that has worked or lived there will deny any of this. They know where the food comes from. They know what the religious theme is. They know what books they are forced to read. You, unfortunately, do not.
Bizarrely, you seem to think that I have some case I need to prove in a court of law. I do not. I was simply correcting what you said, in ignorance. What makes you think that no one has complained about the abuse at the Utah Boys Ranch before. That is terribly insulting and pretty disgusting. Although child abuse and rape victims are custom to being brushed off, I feel embarrassed that you are here offering an apologetic defense.
You dishonestly portrayed Mr. Hinkley's "bulletin" as a letter. You shouldn't. What were his words, exactly? Pay close attention:
"There came to my desk recently a bulletin issued by the Utah Boys Ranch. It included the story of a boy named Mike."
Mike did not write him a letter, as you imply. The Boys Ranch sent him a "bulletin" that "included the story" of a boy. Allegedly the "bulletin" also contained a letter from Mike. The word "bulletin" seems interesting if this was merely a piece of fan mail or testimony.
Regardless of what you want to say about that "bulletin" - it is also not clear that you understand the meaning of the word slander, lol - you haven't done one thing to support your claim that the Mormon church has nothing to do with the Utah Boys Ranch. Your Internet amateur apologetics would really be appreciated on Mormon related message boards, I'm sure, but I was there for 7 months. You don't know what you are talking about.
As to your questions...
#2. There are many prisons, military bases,private schools, other facilities with four or more missionaries assigned to them. There are bases, prisons, facilities, and private schools, with CES employee's holding classes, and bishops, and chapels.
#4. The Utah Boy's Ranch does not have only LDS employee's working there. You say that the staff is 100% LDS members (but you can't prove that) From your own statements, and that of the author of the story I can only see one possible LDS Church employee that is involved with the Utah Boy's Ranch (the Seminary teacher) (which I also explained why one would be present)
You assume that it is the LDS Church that was (by your words) forcing you to read the Book of Mormon, and not the Utah Boy's Ranch. I have shown how this would be a violation of Church guidelines, and have explained why a facility like the ranch would have missionaries, a chapel...ect.
You assume that because an organization uses LDS scripture, and has LDS members working there, it must be owned and operated by the LDS Church. I can think of many organizations or varying quality where this is true, and yet none of them is owned or operated by the LDS Church. (Young Living, NuSkin, Provo College..ect)
I have never said that you were/were not, forced to read the LDS scriptures by the Utah Boy's Ranch, as this has nothing to do with the factual matter of who owns and operates the facility. I am not accusing or defending anyone or anything. I am showing factual documentation of policy.
To be clear, you are accusing the LDS Church and leadership of violating it's own policies and directives, and proclaiming that it secretly owns and operates the Utah Boy's Ranch. For proof of this accusation you talk about the presence of the LDS Church at the facility (which has been explained) you talk about how the employee's are all LDS (like many business' in Utah) and that the ranch uses the Book of Mormon (anyone can use LDS Scripture however they wish). None of these things proves that the LDS Church owns and operates the ranch.
Now if you could prove that the ranch was on property that was owned by the LDS Church, or if you could show some documentation, some memo... any real proof that this is (assuming it's true) anything more then a few people abusing children and lying to everyone around them about it that would be a very different thing.
And once again, your personal attacks on me do not invalidate what I'm saying. Slander is the exactly the word that is appropriate in this situation, as your supposition that the President of the LDS church knew about the abuse is a false, and malicious statement. As always, people should look at all the information and decide for themselves what to believe.
FIrst of all, you answered ZERO of my FOUR questions. You pretended to answer two, but you couldn't even do that. Here are they are again, so you can ignore them and continue fighting straw-men.
"1. How many military bases JUST have LDS chapels on them?
2. How many military bases or other similar facilities have four missionaries assigned to them?
3. How many military bases or other similar facilities require soldiers or students to read the Book of Mormon?
4. How many military bases or other similar facilities have only LDS employees working there?"
You need to answer those questions.
Here is a list of the straw-man arguments you used - just from your last comment - that just don't fly, Amanda. Maybe if you can honestly answer my questions, and honestly reevaluate the need you have to skew and misrepresent my words, we can begin to understand each other. If not, well, I'm sorry for you.
Straw-man argument # 1 -
Amanda: "You assume that it is the LDS Church that was (by your words) forcing you to read the Book of Mormon, and not the Utah Boy's Ranch."
I'd like you to quote where I said that the LDS Church was forcing me to read the Book of Mormon. This should be easy, considering you said "by your words" and all.
Straw-man argument # 2 -
Amanda: "To be clear, you are accusing the LDS Church and leadership of violating it's own policies and directives, and proclaiming that it secretly owns and operates the Utah Boy's Ranch."
I'd like you to quote where I said, pardon, proclaimed that the "LDS Church and leadership secretly owns and operates the Utah Boy's Ranch."
Straw-man argument # 3 -
Amanda: "Now if you could prove that the ranch was on property that was owned by the LDS Church, or if you could show some documentation, some memo..."
I'd like you to quote where I said that the LDS Church "owned" the Utah Boys Ranch or the property that it rests on. Bizarrely you think that would somehow matter.
Straw-man argument # 4 -
Amanda: "And once again, your personal attacks on me do not invalidate what I'm saying."
I'd like you to quote where I personally attacked you.
Straw-man argument # 5 -
Amanda: "Slander is the exactly the word that is appropriate in this situation, as your supposition that the President of the LDS church knew about the abuse is a false, and malicious statement."
First of all, you are really tipping your hand here. "Slander" is not the right word, and I suggest you consider the definition. You mean to say libel, since this is all in writing, but it is not libel because:
1. I never said, as you dishonestly insist, "that the President of the LDS church knew about the abuse." That is a straw-man argument, it is simply not true Amanda. I never said that, and if you can't quote me saying that then I expect a retraction.
2. It is no LIBELOUS to say that the Gordon B. Hinkley mentioned receiving correspondence from the Utah Boys Ranch, something he called a "bulletin." It is absolutely true.
Amanda: "I am specifically NOT talking about the validity of those accusations. I am NOT denying that abuse happened, nor am I saying it did. I am ONLY commenting about LDS Church policy, and your suppositions concerning it."
So in other words, you care a lot more about someone tarnishing the reputation of the Mormon Church than child abuse. Well, at least you aren't trying to hide it. Forgive me while I go vomit.
P.S (The LDS Church is made up of SEVERAL different business entities, one of them is Intellectual Reserve Inc., and they are the entity that sued Wikileaks. By your standards, not even Intellectual Reserve Inc., is part of the Mormon Church)
1. Mormon "employees"- While the only official, paid employees are the seminary teachers, it is undeniable that there are many official representatives of the church assigned there on a full time schedule.
2.Funding/Ownership- There may or may not be an "official" link between the church and the facility, I don't know and have never looked closely enough to know. I would suspect that it would be difficult to obtain any written proof supposing it were. It is completely accurate to say that the religion is force fed to every youth that goes through the program. I agree with Amanda's comment about missionaries and chapels at many different locations but the difference is that while the Mormon chapel is very elaborate and fully furnished as you would find at any "regular" shurch house, there is no such chapel available for individuals of any other faith.
I was at the Boys Ranch during the same time period as Eric, the author. I was there from the time I was 15 until I was 18 with a small break when I was 16. I am now married, have a daughter and have a career in law enforcement. Safe to say that I am an entirely different person than who I was at that time. I can honestly say and put my reputation on the line saying that the statements made in the article are well within the realm of believability. While I did not witness every event that Eric speaks of in his article I witnessed plenty of my own.
One thing that anyone reading this article or any comment given by an individual that was there needs to take into consideration is that the majority of you can not imagine how terrifiying it is at 15 (or any age) to be blindly thrown into a situation like that, no understanding of what is happening or why. There are many people that have been employed by the UBR that took advantage of this and some that enjoyed it.
I personally was "restrained" as they would call it, multiple times in situations that were entirely out of line. I know for fact that the only time a law enforcement officer is allowed to legally use any type of force is when an individual is posing an immediate threat to themselves or others. I would imagine that the same would hold true with youth centers such as this but was applied to get compliance with directions, to obtain certain "attitudes" and often just because something was said that irritated them. Frequently pressure points were applied as well as painful twisting of body extensions, and at times blunt force i.e. hitting, slamming on ground or wall. I can think of a couple times where foreign objects were used. One such time involved a staff member, a shovel and a boy who was at the time 13. This is just a small portion and only one type of abuse that I personaly witnessed.
As for comments about indiviuals visting the ranch and talking with individuals, any time something like this is taking place visitors won't see it. It is almost laughable to assume that while strolling down the halls, staff are going to be sucker punching kids. They know when and where they can do it and who they can allow to see it happen. It's like a cop walking down the street in uniform and a crack dealer standing in front of him selling to little Timmy. It doesn't work like that. As for talking to youth about this there are multiple things to consider. If the boy was still under 18 there was likely the fear of it getting back to his parents or a staff member, opening the door for a "tune-up", a short stint back at the rach or even re-admission. Another is that Buttars was not directly involved with the day to day operations, he may have thought Buttars was okay but had an entirely different view of other issues. Also not every boy shares all of the same experiences as others. In cases involving abuse such as kidnapping and rape, especially with youth, it is not uncommon for the victim to have a distorted perspective of what happened. A form of "brain washing" as it were, can take place. With some of the things that happened at the ranch, especially over long periods of time, is it not believable that the same happened to some youth there?
Basically, I hold no responsibilty to the Mormon church itself, but perhaps it should look closely at those representing it and what they are doing in it's name. It is easy to see why someone would be angry with the religion after an experience like that. Also, before passing judgement on someone else that you don't know and have no clue what they have been through, making claims to their credibility, you should take many more things into consideration than what you find written by those accused.
It can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuQnF523OW4
Best,
Eric
Best Wishes to you.
Hazel.
The Boys Ranch (now West Ridge) is one of dozens around the country with a spiritual theme. Just like parents don't usually send their kids to Oral Roberts University without the expectation of some amount of rather particularized religious indoctrination, so they don't send their kids to West Ridge. Parents there expect their children to receive Mormon-themed religious indoctrination, although the program is moving away from that emphasis.
Although I am not a fan of boot camps, thinking that they don't work very well (based upon my professional experience), they do play a role in society. Parents who are completely desperate, but don't want to institutionalize their children in a state-run correctional facility, turn when they can to these boot camps, particularly if they are perceived to be run by religious folks. These camps have proven to be more successful than state youth correctional facilities.
In terms of funding, the boot camps -- in particular the spiritually-themed ones -- grasp for funding wherever they can get it -- the state, grant money, charity and, yes, churches. I don't know much about the Mormon church's program, so I don't and can't comment upon the allegation that the Mormon church funds West Ridge, but I wouldn't be surprised one way or the other. However, the annual cost for one boy would typically swamp the offerings of virtually any Christian congregation, so I have my doubts.
The boy's ranch has enjoyed the blessings, if not the financial support of "THE Church" since it's inception. Stop with the hair splitting. The place is a mormon run, state sanctioned facility.
...and I say this in the name of Jesus Christ amen, SO get over it!