Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[ScoopJahoop]

Can’t wait to have someone explain to me why refusing to provide authorities with info about reported sexual assaults is the right thing to do. Also the church just doesn’t know who served in what mission and when

https://www.ksl.com/article/46549785...r-missionaries

[creekster]

Can’t wait to have someone explain to me why refusing to provide authorities with info about reported sexual assaults is the right thing to do. Also the church just doesn’t know who served in what mission and when ��

It would be helpful if you gave a link or at least some more context.

[ScoopJahoop]

It would be helpful if you gave a link or at least some more context.

Yeah I hit submit too soon

[LVAllen]

Can’t wait to have someone explain to me why refusing to provide authorities with info about reported sexual assaults is the right thing to do. Also the church just doesn’t know who served in what mission and when

https://www.ksl.com/article/46549785...r-missionaries

I'm not sure why you don't believe them when they say they don't have the names of people who were in the MTC in a 2 month period in 1984, or the names of the people who served during a particular time frame. It was 1984. The local records weren't computerized until 1986. They may have had that information in 1985, or even 1986. But there were 29,000 missionaries in 1984 (based on the 29,265 number provided in April 1985 conference). So that's roughly 5,000 people who were in the MTC for a brief period of time. Probably a few handfuls of Sisters. In 1984. There's a reason Statutes of Limitations exist, you know.

Now, can they run a search on Sex=Female, Mission=Buenos Aires Argentina North Mission? Sure. That information, at least, is kept in the Membership record. It's less certain that the dates of service are included. The dates of service aren't kept for any other non-leadership calling.

[Donuthole]

Can’t wait to have someone explain to me why refusing to provide authorities with info about reported sexual assaults is the right thing to do. Also the church just doesn’t know who served in what mission and when

https://www.ksl.com/article/46549785...r-missionaries

The link you posted doesn’t say either of those things, SJ. FYI, you hurt your credibility when you exaggerate or misrepresent.

[beefytee]

I'm not sure why you don't believe them when they say they don't have the names of people who were in the MTC in a 2 month period in 1984, or the names of the people who served during a particular time frame. It was 1984. The local records weren't computerized until 1986. They may have had that information in 1985, or even 1986. But there were 29,000 missionaries in 1984 (based on the 29,265 number provided in April 1985 conference). So that's roughly 5,000 people who were in the MTC for a brief period of time. Probably a few handfuls of Sisters. In 1984. There's a reason Statutes of Limitations exist, you know.

Now, can they run a search on Sex=Female, Mission=Buenos Aires Argentina North Mission? Sure. That information, at least, is kept in the Membership record. It's less certain that the dates of service are included. The dates of service aren't kept for any other non-leadership calling.

Also he was President in Buenos Aires from 78-81. Long before the 86 date of going digital. I imagine the information imported from before then in limited.

[wapiti]

Also he was President in Buenos Aires from 78-81. Long before the 86 date of going digital. I imagine the information imported from before then in limited.

Sounds like the attorney wants to go fishing for more clients.

[ScoopJahoop]

The link you posted doesn’t say either of those things, SJ. FYI, you hurt your credibility when you exaggerate or misrepresent.

The church has refused to provide the identities of those who reported assault to their ecclesiastical leaders and told the court they “didn’t have that information” re missionaries who served under him. BS they don’t.

[falafel]

Yeah, you're missing the mark here Scoop. Regroup and try again with the next MOTCOJCOLDS news story.

[ScoopJahoop]

I'm not sure why you don't believe them when they say they don't have the names of people who were in the MTC in a 2 month period in 1984, or the names of the people who served during a particular time frame. It was 1984. The local records weren't computerized until 1986. They may have had that information in 1985, or even 1986. But there were 29,000 missionaries in 1984 (based on the 29,265 number provided in April 1985 conference). So that's roughly 5,000 people who were in the MTC for a brief period of time. Probably a few handfuls of Sisters. In 1984. There's a reason Statutes of Limitations exist, you know.

Now, can they run a search on Sex=Female, Mission=Buenos Aires Argentina North Mission? Sure. That information, at least, is kept in the Membership record. It's less certain that the dates of service are included. The dates of service aren't kept for any other non-leadership calling.

And I’m not sure how you could possibly believe them when they say they don’t. Record keeping people and all that.

[falafel]

The church has refused to provide the identities of those who reported assault to their ecclesiastical leaders and told the court they “didn’t have that information” re missionaries who served under him. BS they don’t.

They said they didn't have a list. That's not the same thing as saying they don't have it. They may be able to compile a list, but the question is whether that is unduly burdensome and proportional to the needs of the case. The judge correctly ordered that that church make a "reasonable" effort to produce the requested information. It may not be reasonable to ask the church to scour hundreds of thousands of records and compile the requested information. Then again, it may be. Difficult for us arm-chair litigators to determine.

[Moliere]

And I’m not sure how you could possibly believe them when they say they don’t. Record keeping people and all that.

You think they have a list laying around of missionaries that served in a specific mission 40 years ago? I’m sure the information exists somewhere, but my guess is it’s on a hundred different magnetic tapes or thousands of microfiche and stored in that large granite vault thingy.

The church sounds truthful in their response. The judge then asked them to make a reasonable effort to produce it. Sounds like the church will comply. Not sure why all the outrage.

[falafel]

You think they have a list laying around of missionaries that served in a specific mission 40 years ago? I’m sure the information exists somewhere, but my guess is it’s on a hundred different magnetic tapes or thousands of microfiche and stored in that large granite vault thingy.

The church sounds truthful in their response. The judge then asked them to make a reasonable effort to produce it. Sounds like the church will comply. Not sure why all the outrage.

Because he left the church and now has nowhere to direct all of his pent up energy.

[Donuthole]

The church has refused to provide the identities of those who reported assault to their ecclesiastical leaders and told the court they “didn’t have that information” re missionaries who served under him. BS they don’t.

Stupid or liar? You are either one or the other. I'll let you go ahead and pick. Let us know, though.

[tooblue]

Stupid or liar? You are either one or the other. I'll let you go ahead and pick. Let us know, though.

I don't know if he is either of those things, but I am confident he hasn't completely thought this through. What happens if the church produces a list and there are missionaries who do not want that information shared with the court? The assumption that the court and in turn the accuser has an absolute right to that information is problematic.