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

[Jeff Lebowski]

My gosh, it's hard for me to believe that this has still happened in the last decade. I'm pretty sure one of you works with the firm that handles these issues for the church, so I have to believe that y'all have pulled your great legal minds out of your asses on this issue.

…..

I'm sure I'm more attuned to how to handle these issues, but I honestly can't fathom being a bishop and physician, becoming aware of sexual abuse, and being passive on this issue because some douchebag from Kirton McConkie is telling you to.

Here is an essay by one of those “douchebags from Kirton McConkie”.

https://www.deseret.com/2022/8/5/232...d-press-mormon

[All-American]

No doubt the guy minimized his actions. Having lied about my pron exposure in a temple recommend interview before, I understand the impetus.

however, I am at a loss to come up with a ‘fuzzy’ downplayed scenario that the bishop is concerned enough to call the hot line, rope in the spouse to get him to report, and finally excommunicate him that the church is alluding to to cover for the official inaction. It was child abuse, even if the extent of the evilness of it wasn’t known at the beginning.

I think AA’s opinion that the legal advice the bishops got from the church lawyers was simply incorrect is the best explanation. It was catastrophic in the end, but I can see how everything rippled from that call.

I’ll add a caveat. The legal advice appears to me to be incorrect, assuming all the facts as reported were true and that all material facts were communicated to the bishop and then to the lawyer. None of those are necessarily something to take for granted.

[Non Sequitur]

Here is an essay by one of those “douchebags from Kirton McConkie”.

https://www.deseret.com/2022/8/5/232...d-press-mormon

Her essay is touching, but it doesn't obviate the fact that the sole role of Kirton McConkie in this story is that of risk mitigation for the Church. Let's not pretend that KM represents the interests of the victims, because they don't. They are paid to protect the interests of the Church. That's it.

[SteelBlue]

To encourage people to talk to them.

I can't get rid of the feeling that this notion is one of the main problems. The hope that a confession option gets people to talk about their crime bringing it to light thus stopping more abuse. In the end, any route to "forgiveness" that involves secrecy has a high potential to backfire. Secrecy should not be an option. "Getting people to talk to them" is not worth the risks it brings.

[Moliere]

Her essay is touching, but it doesn't obviate the fact that the sole role of Kirton McConkie in this story is that of risk mitigation for the Church. Let's not pretend that KM represents the interests of the victims, because they don't. They are paid to protect the interests of the Church. That's it.

I’ll ask again. What risk was KM mitigating when they told the bishop not to report the confessed abuse? The abuser was not a church leader and it even sounds like he wasn’t super active. The church didn’t give him access that allowed the abuse. The church had zero culpability in the case when the abuse was first reported. So what risk was KM mitigating when they supposedly gave the bishop the directive to not report the abuse so the church would be protected?

[Green Monstah]

Here is an essay by one of those “douchebags from Kirton McConkie”.

https://www.deseret.com/2022/8/5/232...d-press-mormon

The Church wheels out their most sympathetic lawyer, who wasn’t even in law school yet when these girls were abused.sort of like Tom Cristofersson (“Oaks is at it again. Can someone get Todd’s gay brother on this?”)

i know what you’re thinking. It’s a cynical take. You don’t even have to say it.

To the church’s credit, I do think they’ve improved in this regard in the last two decades. I’m shocked that this all went down in 2012, though. And it certainly makes me concerned that there are still issues with the way the church responds.

[beefytee]

Her essay is touching, but it doesn't obviate the fact that the sole role of Kirton McConkie in this story is that of risk mitigation for the Church. Let's not pretend that KM represents the interests of the victims, because they don't. They are paid to protect the interests of the Church. That's it.

I can’t think of any time that those two objectives would be in conflict with each other. The best interest of the church would be to take care of the interests of the victims. If there was any doubt before, the AP story shreds any doubt about that.

Obviously, there are mistakes made in the process sometimes. But I have to imagine, they a have established a culture and processes to make sure those 2 things align.

Maybe I’m too naive to believe these lawyers as a whole would be that dense.

[All-American]

I can't get rid of the feeling that this notion is one of the main problems. The hope that a confession option gets people to talk about their crime bringing it to light thus stopping more abuse. In the end, any route to "forgiveness" that involves secrecy has a high potential to backfire. Secrecy should not be an option. "Getting people to talk to them" is not worth the risks it brings.

That may be right. It may not be right. I don’t know. There’s a lot of mileage in those shoes that I haven’t walked.

[All-American]

I’ll ask again. What risk was KM mitigating when they told the bishop not to report the confessed abuse? The abuser was not a church leader and it even sounds like he wasn’t super active. The church didn’t give him access that allowed the abuse. The church had zero culpability in the case when the abuse was first reported. So what risk was KM mitigating when they supposedly gave the bishop the directive to not report the abuse so the church would be protected?

As I read the Arizona statute, none. The path of greatest risk mitigation would have been to report, as the statute allows. The statute also allows not reporting, but by not reporting you put in play litigation over whether withholding was (a) reasonable and (b) within the concepts of the religion.

All of which leads me to think that either facts are being unreported or misreported, or if the facts are correctly reported, the lawyers gave incorrect advice.

[Non Sequitur]

I’ll ask again. What risk was KM mitigating when they told the bishop not to report the confessed abuse? The abuser was not a church leader and it even sounds like he wasn’t super active. The church didn’t give him access that allowed the abuse. The church had zero culpability in the case when the abuse was first reported. So what risk was KM mitigating when they supposedly gave the bishop the directive to not report the abuse so the church would be protected?

The Church retains the law firm of Kirton McConkie to protect the interests of the Church. That's what law firms do. If the Church's interests were not in need of protection, then KM would not be a part of this story. I'm not saying that KM is evil, just that their duty is to service the Church, not the victims.

[Moliere]

The Church retains the law firm of Kirton McConkie to protect the interests of the Church. That's what law firms do. If the Church's interests were not in need of protection, then KM would not be a part of this story. I'm not saying that KM is evil, just that their duty is to service the Church, not the victims.

You didn’t answer the question.

[LVAllen]

I honestly don't know where this goes. Could be here in the foyer, since it is about a guy who (at least as of 23 years ago) was a member of the church. Now he's the Trumpiest of Trumpists, has a social media following and a clothing line that proudly features Made in USA and a copy of the Constitution with every order. But, uh, the clothing is actually made in China and just has the origin tags cut off before reshipping.

https://www.politicalflare.com/2022/...e-in-usa-tags/

The dude was an AP in my mission. I think a few years ago he may have disavowed any ties to formal religion.

[Donuthole]

I honestly don't know where this goes. Could be here in the foyer, since it is about a guy who (at least as of 23 years ago) was a member of the church. Now he's the Trumpiest of Trumpists, has a social media following and a clothing line that proudly features Made in USA and a copy of the Constitution with every order. But, uh, the clothing is actually made in China and just has the origin tags cut off before reshipping.

https://www.politicalflare.com/2022/...e-in-usa-tags/

The dude was an AP in my mission. I think a few years ago he may have disavowed any ties to formal religion.

I went down a Sean Whalen wormhole one day a few years back. I read one of his posts about how he took his son out to dinner. His son’s entree arrived first, but Sean made his son wait to eat until Sean’s own meal arrived and he took a bite because “Lions Eat First” or some nonsense like that. It had some stupid parable that was mostly nonsensical with a moral derived from twisted logic. The post had thousands of likes and supportive comments.

I couldn’t help myself, so I commented about how Christ took the loaves and fishes and broke them and gave to his disciples and the multitude to eat. The Bible doesn’t even say if Jesus ate, and certainly doesn’t teach that he ate first. I guess I’ll settle for being a sheep like Jesus when I let my kid eat first.

My comment hadn’t been up 5 mins before Whalen deleted it. Snowflake.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sean Whalen is a horrible person. Blows my mind that he has made a business out of being a douche bag.

[Bo Diddley]

I went down a Sean Whalen wormhole one day a few years back. I read one of his posts about how he took his son out to dinner. His son’s entree arrived first, but Sean made his son wait to eat until Sean’s own meal arrived and he took a bite because “Lions Eat First” or some nonsense like that. It had some stupid parable that was mostly nonsensical with a moral derived from daily, twisted logic. The post had thousands of likes and supportive comments.

I couldn’t help myself, so I commented about how Christ took the loaves and fishes and broke them and gave to his disciples and the multitude to eat. The Bible doesn’t even say if Jesus ate, and certainly doesn’t teach that he ate first. I guess I’ll settle for being a sheep like Jesus when I let my kid eat first.

My comment hadn’t been up 5 mins before Whalen deleted it. Snowflake.

I subscribe to Servant Leadership. Leaders eat last.