Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[Surfah]

I've been in the SS Presidency. It is absolutely possible that he could have access to someone to groom through this position. SS Presidency meeting discussing who to call for Gospel Doctrine. Former Mission President Bishop suggests that 18-year old Sally really would make a great teacher. The spirit has told him she could use this opportunity so much to prepare her to serve a mission. Former Mission President Bishop is well respected, so they extend the call to Sally.

Brother Bishop decides that he really wants to help Sally be the best Gospel Doctrine teacher that she can be. She is young and could use a Priesthood leader with such a distinguished history of church service to help her. He arranges meetings with her to help her prepare lessons, develop teaching strategies, etc.

For someone like this asshole, any position of Priesthood authority is an opportunity.



Except that it gives him Priesthood authority that he could use to prey and groom her.

Are you kidding me? LOL. The dude is an effing bell ringer. This reminds me of Niku's uber important public relations calling. I miss that dude sometimes.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Are you kidding me? LOL. The dude is an effing bell ringer. This reminds me of Niku's uber important public relations calling. I miss that dude sometimes.

I agree it is a bell ringer. It is basically what the calling does, but someone looking to magnify his calling may enthusiastically do more than ringing the bell. This person is a serial predator and will use even bell ringer as a means to get at his prey. I think you are underestimating predators.

A couple of simple yes or no questions:

1) Does the SS Presidency have the option to have presidency meetings?
2) If there are presidency meetings, can the presidency discuss potential individuals to call as SS teachers?

If the answer to these are yes, he has an opportunity even as a bell ringer.

[tooblue]

I don't think excommunication for sin should be a thing. I'm not sure about excommunication for apostasy. Maybe. But not sin.

I don't agree. In certain circumstances, it is the only way for an individual to wipe the slate clean.

[wuapinmon]

And the church should also practice Sharia law ... maybe behead him while they're at right.

tooblue's law, as an online Mormon discussion of grievous abuse of power leading to sexual abuse approaches discussion of excommunication, someone will mention Sharia Law.

everybody agrees with that. but this implicates a broader context in which the process of weighing evidence and reaching informed conclusions should be observed, even if for its own sake.

This is a good thought.

Awful things were done by a prominent Mormon, welcome back ER!

He knows where to find quality on the internet.

I don't think excommunication for sin should be a thing. I'm not sure about excommunication for apostasy. Maybe. But not sin.

Excommunication for sin seems to deny the Atonement.

[tooblue]

Clever, if it were accurate wuap ... but then again, has anyone ever accused you of either (I kid, I kid)? In the case of funk, he does seem to prefer a judge Dredge style justice system:

[falafel]

So is that scenario possible or not? Is it zero tolerance or .01% tolerance? If it is zero tolerance, even giving him a position as a SS Presidency is a risk.

It is wonderful being me by the way, even if my line of work forces me to recognize these types of goblins.

You are assuming that no one else in the church is doing their job. Guaranteed the bishop, SP, SS and EQ pres. know about this guy's issues (and certainly we should assume so in this hypothetical), yet would then just let this guy recommend an 18 year old sister, then volunteer to meet with her privately in his basement with a bed and VCR, and never say anything about it. Zero tolerance does not mean they have to keep this guy in a cage at all times. They can still have zero tolerance and give him a token calling.

And 2nd counselor in the SS presidency is not a bell ringer. He's the third-string bell ringer.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Clever, if it were accurate ... but then again, has anyone every accused you of either (I kid, I kid)? In the case of funk, he does seem to prefer a judge Dredge style justice system:

tooblue, we aren't talking about the justice system here. We are talking about a church and the administration of that church. If we were talking about the justice system, it would be a very different conversation.

I am taking the LDS church at its word here. The LDS church says they have a zero tolerance policy. Prove it with how you handle his admissions.

[Uncle Ted]

You are assuming that no one else in the church is doing their job. Guaranteed the bishop, SP, SS and EQ pres. know about this guy's issues (and certainly we should assume so in this hypothetical), yet would then just let this guy recommend an 18 year old sister, then volunteer to meet with her privately in his basement with a bed and VCR, and never say anything about it. Zero tolerance does not mean they have to keep this guy in a cage at all times. They can still have zero tolerance and give him a token calling.

And 2nd counselor in the SS presidency is not a bell ringer. He's the third-string bell ringer.

[falafel]

tooblue, we aren't talking about the justice system here. We are talking about a church and the administration of that church. If we were talking about the justice system, it would be a very different conversation.

I am taking the LDS church at its word here. The LDS church says they have a zero tolerance policy. Prove it with how you handle his admissions.

I think there is a valid debate to be had about what it means to carry out a zero tolerance policy in the church. How do you balance zero tolerance with the idea of the atonement? What is the acceptable level of forgiveness for someone who has committed sexual assault or rape? No priesthood calling ever? No callings involving children or youth (even if his crimes were against adults)? That pretty much prevents this person from ever holding any kind of calling again.

[tooblue]

tooblue, we aren't talking about the justice system here. We are talking about a church and the administration of that church. If we were talking about the justice system, it would be a very different conversation.

I am taking the LDS church at its word here. The LDS church says they have a zero tolerance policy. Prove it with how you handle his admissions.

The church is not autonomous from society, and as far as we know has lived up to its word, to the letter: their policy is being followed. Now, if it is discovered that mistakes in the past were made, then excoriation will be warranted. But we should wait until we have all the evidence.

[smokymountainrain]

I'm not sure I understand the problem you have with my posts? I do not have all of the facts (neither do you) of the case, and I am not willing to pass judgement against the individual, or the church, or even the judicial system based upon insufficient knowledge.

I am certain that the church will act appropriately, after they conclude their investigation, and that they may not do anything until legal investigations are concluded. Excommunication may be the result of the investigation. In fact, he may already have been excommunicated. The point is, at this point, we just don't know.

Are there circumstances where excommunication is warranted, and could this be one of them? Absolutely. But I am not the one who will sit in the council and help make that determination. And I am thankful for that.

I don't have a problem with your posts. i disagreed with o_g's assertion that everyone agreed that he should be ex'd and used you as an example. you protested. i called you out and in an effort to show that i was right. and based on your response here, i was right. no harm, no foul. carry on.

[tooblue]

I don't have a problem with your posts. i disagreed with o_g's assertion that everyone agreed that he should be ex'd and used you as an example. you protested. i called you out and in an effort to show that i was right. and based on your response here, i was right. no harm, no foul. carry on.

You're not right, but believe as you will. I'm just not comfortable offering a definitive opinion, except to say excommunication may be warranted.

[bluegoose]

And 2nd counselor in the SS presidency is not a bell ringer. He's the third-string bell ringer.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't agree. In certain circumstances, it is the only way for an individual to wipe the slate clean.

Just as a matter of doctrine, why is excommunication required to access the redemptive power of the atonement? And under which circumstances is the atonement not powerful enough for full repentance?

[falafel]

Just as a matter of doctrine, why is excommunication required to access the redemptive power of the atonement? And under which circumstances is the atonement not powerful enough for full repentance?

I don't know the answer, but the whole "fall of Adam" seems to have some parallels to ex-communication and working your way back into the presence of God.