Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[tooblue]

Ha, looks like NWC had the same question. Sorry to rehash.

I wonder what "take it seriously" means. It took them hours to decide to scrub him from deseret book, but they can't hold a court? Two months is a long time to sit on this kind of evidence. I realize he's 85, but it's a terrible precedent to set, if they're truly interested in protecting future victims.

How do investigations work at your place of employment: is judgment summarily issued without gathering information, and merely based on accusation? I hope not, for your sake.

What we know is the church has started an investigation, and it is reasonable to expect such an investigation to take time. She has accused ten other men of "sexual assault, sexual harassment or assault without charges being filed." She also threatened to kill Bishop.

We should all hope for prudent, and thorough consideration for all the facts, before making summary judgments about what may or may not have occurred.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900013479/woman-levels-accusations-against-former-mtc-president.html

[Uncle Ted]

I've only skimmed this thread, so sorry if this has been addressed, but the (in)action that I'm having a really hard time wrapping my brain around is what happened in January. Outside counsel hired to investigate? Good. They see the stories differ and drop it? Hmm...a bit of a head scratcher, considering the tape, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they have access to evidence we don't. But then, the day this comes out, his online church presence (deseret book and the like) is scrubbed? So suddenly, the evidence is enough to at least take some action?
It's really hard to escape the conclusion that they didnt really care until they had to.

Does anyone know if he's had a court? Because the church has held courts on far less evidence. I don't doubt we'll see one now that everyone's watching, which will only reinforce the question, "what were you waiting for? "

You would think someone in the leadership in the church in the last few months would simply call him up and ask if he has anything he wanted to confess. If he came forward and confessed then he might have a chance to have his "blessings restored" before he leaves this world.

But maybe he has already confessed some time in the past and the church said, "Well, the woman is a bit crazy and this would just bring a lot of embarrassment to the church... let's just keep this all on the low down." Does "double jeopardy" apply to church courts (of love) as well?

[falafel]

Ha, looks like NWC had the same question. Sorry to rehash.

I wonder what "take it seriously" means. It took them hours to decide to scrub him from deseret book, but they can't hold a court? Two months is a long time to sit on this kind of evidence. I realize he's 85, but it's a terrible precedent to set, if they're truly interested in protecting future victims.

You went from asking whether anyone knows if he's had a church court to deciding they haven't had one yet in about 5 minutes and then blaming the church for your assumption.

[ERCougar]

How do investigations work at your place of employment: is judgment summarily issued without gathering information, and merely based on accusation? I hope not, for your sake.

What we know is the church has started an investigation, and it is reasonable to expect such an investigation to take time. She has accused ten other men of "sexual assault, sexual harassment or assault without charges being filed." She also threatened to kill Bishop.

We should all hope for prudent, and thorough consideration for all the facts, before making summary judgments about what may or may not have occurred.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...president.html

Good Lord, are you serious?
If a hospital administrator received a tape of me confessing that I had sexually assaulted a patient, I would be pulled out of the ER immediately.

[ERCougar]

You went from asking whether anyone knows if he's had a church court to deciding they haven't had one yet in about 5 minutes and then blaming the church for your assumption.

I hope I'm wrong. I Would think the church would have mentioned a disciplinary council having been held, but maybe they're just keeping their cards tight to their chest. I guess we'll see.

[tooblue]

Good Lord, are you serious?
If a hospital administrator received a tape of me confessing that I had sexually assaulted a patient, I would be pulled out of the ER immediately.

I would hope you would be pulled out of the ER, but I would also hope you would not immediately be fired, or jailed before a thorough investigation was conducted. What's a reasonable time frame for such a situation: an hour, a week, a month, a year ... I can almost guarantee that such an investigation would take more than a hour, a week or even a couple of months.

His books have been removed from Deseret Book. He has been named publicly in the Deseret News. In a sense he has been "pulled from the ER."

Courts with priesthood leaders, as you all are want to call them, follow similar procedures as those in non-religious institutions. Investigations into circumstances often occur over months before a disciplinary council is organized. Sometimes they even wait for legal proceedings to conclude. Prudence is always warranted.

[Northwestcoug]

When you say "last year", what are you talking about? The church got the recording in January. Two months ago.

Again, what would you do differently in a "he said/she said" context? Not just this case, but in general. Always believe the accuser? Don't you think they have some obligation to be careful and deliberate?

That reads kind of oversimplistic, dude.

I'm referring to the #metoo movement from last year. I think we are in agreement that the backlash against sexual harassment/assault has moved the needle for society. I would hope that the church (which admittedly has far less of a problem with sexual harassment than society in general) could see this trend and work to improve its response when it does happen.

I'm not going to generalize what the church should do. Just to make sure everyone understands this, I am not advocating for the extreme of always believing the accuser without question. But I am aware of notation tendencies the church has with members who have verboten inclinations or behaviors. At the very least, this would seem like a good example of where an asterisk could be placed on a membership record. And yes, someone who has already been a MTC and a mission president is going to get a huge benefit of doubt, so I'm not sure what an asterisk would realistically do with a church leadership future like his. But that is a good start for an 'obligation to be careful and deliberate', which I agree they need to be. Just less deliberate than what they were with him.

[falafel]

I would hope you would be pulled out of the ER, but I would also hope you would not immediately be fired, or jailed before a thorough investigation was conducted. What's a reasonable time frame for such a situation: an hour, a week, a month, a year ... I can almost guarantee that such an investigation would take more than a hour, a week or even a couple of months.

His books have been removed from Deseret Book. He has been named publicly in the Deseret News. In a sense he has been "pulled from the ER."

Courts with priesthood leaders, as you all are want to call them, follow similar procedures as those in non-religious institutions. Investigations into circumstances often occur over months before a disciplinary council is organized. Sometimes they even wait for legal proceedings to conclude. Prudence is always warranted.

Does anyone know if he holds any current "significant" callings? I doubt he does. He's 85 and apparently sick and dying. I don't think there's even an ER to pull him from at this point. Maybe that is one explanation for the perceived lack of urgency.

[ERCougar]

I would hope you would be pulled out of the ER, but I would also hope you would not immediately be fired, or jailed before a thorough investigation was conducted. What's a reasonable time frame for such a situation: an hour, a week, a month, a year ... I can almost guarantee that such an investigation would take more than a hour, a week or even a couple of months.

His books have been removed from Deseret Book. He has been named publicly in the Deseret News. In a sense he has been "pulled from the ER."

Courts with priesthood leaders, as you all are want to call them, follow similar procedures as those in non-religious institutions. Investigations into circumstances often occur over months before a disciplinary council is organized. Sometimes they even wait for legal proceedings to conclude. Prudence is always warranted.

I actually couldn't care less if he's "fired" or excommunicated, and I think the church is right in deferring some things to the authorities, and in pursuing its own investigation carefully. However, i find the swiftness of the response in protecting its name interesting. Would be nice if it could channel some of that swiftness towards protecting future victims. Protect first, then investigate. That should be the precedent. I honestly don't care at all about seeing him be punished.

[ERCougar]

Yeah, I agree that he's likely not a threat. But handling this almost cut and dry case like it's some sort of constitutional due process test case before you do anything sets a terrible precedent for when the "slutty" teenager reports that the beloved seminary teacher groped her. Don't hang the teacher without an investigation, but first step is to believe her, and then investigate. That's what everyone else has been learning this last year.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That reads kind of oversimplistic, dude.

I'm referring to the #metoo movement from last year. I think we are in agreement that the backlash against sexual harassment/assault has moved the needle for society. I would hope that the church (which admittedly has far less of a problem with sexual harassment than society in general) could see this trend and work to improve its response when it does happen.

I'm not going to generalize what the church should do. Just to make sure everyone understands this, I am not advocating for the extreme of always believing the accuser without question. But I am aware of notation tendencies the church has with members who have verboten inclinations or behaviors. At the very least, this would seem like a good example of where an asterisk could be placed on a membership record. And yes, someone who has already been a MTC and a mission president is going to get a huge benefit of doubt, so I'm not sure what an asterisk would realistically do with a church leadership future like his. But that is a good start for an 'obligation to be careful and deliberate', which I agree they need to be. Just less deliberate than what they were with him.

How do you know what they have and haven't done since January?

I would hope they are doing a massive and thorough review of anyone who may have talked to him in the past to see what broke down. If there was any information withheld by a leader, then some heads need to roll.

I would be shocked if other women don't come forth. Wouldn't surprise me if there is a huge investigation going on right now with multiple victims. Doesn't seem like the type of case where there would be only 2-3 victims.

[tooblue]

I actually couldn't care less if he's "fired" or excommunicated, and I think the church is right in deferring some things to the authorities, and in pursuing its own investigation carefully. However, i find the swiftness of the response in protecting its name interesting. Would be nice if it could channel some of that swiftness towards protecting future victims. Protect first, then investigate. That should be the precedent. I honestly don't care at all about seeing him be punished.

That is the precedent the church adheres to: there is a zero tolerance policy concerning abuse. The hard reality is, few situations are so black and white that a judgement can be arrived at instantaneously, without further investigation.

Protecting the name of the church is a small consideration. However, the are other, more significant social considerations—namely, whether or not individuals in question are a threat to others. The church must defer to law enforcement first, and in my experience law enforcement may ask the church to wait on discipline so as to not unduly influence investigations or proceedings in any way. Again, prudence is paramount.

[myboynoah]

I actually couldn't care less if he's "fired" or excommunicated, and I think the church is right in deferring some things to the authorities, and in pursuing its own investigation carefully. However, i find the swiftness of the response in protecting its name interesting. Would be nice if it could channel some of that swiftness towards protecting future victims. Protect first, then investigate. That should be the precedent. I honestly don't care at all about seeing him be punished.

Protect future victims from thie 85-year-old dying man?

What specifically would those who appear to be unhappy with The Church's response have had The Church do?

[Moliere]

Am I the only one wondering how people know the exact time his books were pulled from Deseret Book? I’m not saying it didn’t happen when it supposedly happened, just wondering how people know this. Maybe UT can shed some internet light on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

How do you know what they have and haven't done since January?

I would hope they are doing a massive and thorough review of anyone who may have talked to him in the past to see what broke down. If there was any information withheld by a leader, then some heads need to roll.

I would be shocked if other women don't come forth. Wouldn't surprise me if there is a huge investigation going on right now with multiple victims. Doesn't seem like the type of case where there would be only 2-3 victims.

I agree with Jeff: the church needs to be thorough, on behalf of any other potential victims. There is a good reason his name has been made public in the Deseret News, and her name has been withheld.