Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[MartyFunkhouser]

What if he has already admitted to grooming women in a previous church "court of love", disfellowshipped (or even ex'ed), and came back? I read somewhere that he was currently serving as 2nd counselor in his ward's sunday school. One would think that a former president of the MTC would be at least serving at the stake leadership level. I guess maybe the bishop in his ward was told by the spirit not to call him to anything more than 2nd counselor in the SS.

If he had a previous court of love and it came out that he used his position of power through the church to groom vulnerable individuals, he should have no calling in the church ever again. If there really is a zero tolerance policy, that is zero tolerance. Even as a second counselor in the SS presidency, he is placed in a position of Priesthood leadership/authority over others, which gives him a forum to groom again.

[Uncle Ted]

If he had a previous court of love and it came out that he used his position of power through the church to groom vulnerable individuals, he should have no calling in the church ever again. If there really is a zero tolerance policy, that is zero tolerance. Even as a second counselor in the SS presidency, he is placed in a position of Priesthood leadership/authority over others, which gives him a forum to groom again.

I agree... but I find it interesting that a former MTC President has "fallen" to the position of SS 2nd C.

[bluegoose]

If he had a previous court of love and it came out that he used his position of power through the church to groom vulnerable individuals, he should have no calling in the church ever again. If there really is a zero tolerance policy, that is zero tolerance. Even as a second counselor in the SS presidency, he is placed in a position of Priesthood leadership/authority over others, which gives him a forum to groom again.

I've been with you on a lot of what you've said the last couple of days, but this part kind of made me chuckle a little. I realize its been awhile since you've been to church, so you probably deserve a free pass this time.

[tooblue]

This conversation has progressed so quickly - with so much going on - that it's really hard to respond to everything I've read and wanted to respond to.

This guy needs to be in trouble. I don't know exactly what that looks like - that's for the courts to decide. But depending on other, more recent, victims - I could see it involving criminal, civil, and a court of love.

I've worked with the police when investigating a sex abuse case. More often than not, they didn't want me talking to an "alleged" perpetrator until they'd had a chance to get as much information from as many victims as they could and then talked to him themselves. Once in a while, if they thought I might get a confession out of him, they'd let me go first. But only if they had given me the go-ahead and knew I was recording the conversation. If there is a possibility of other victims, I could see the police telling the church to slow down a little.

Once the information is made public via mormonleaks or any other source, then it's in the open and any response or actions then need to be made a little more public. So that's when you get a press release from the church stating some of what they know and some of what they are doing. Doesn't mean nothing was done up until then, and it doesn't mean that there won't be more. But short of having a victim that needs immediate protection - there's also no need to rush into things when there's time to do things right.

We've got a guy in our ward who has a history I'm not fully aware of. What I do know, is that he isn't allowed to be around any children, ever. He's nearly 90 years old and needs a walker to get around - but leaders have been made aware that he isn't to be with children and he knows this is the rule and follows it as well. About as close as he gets is sitting in Sacrament Meeting with kids there - but he doesn't even get home taught by someone with a youth companion.

It appears to me that there have been some failures here. But I'm not sure where the failures occurred or who is responsible. I'm not sure what or how much of a cover up there was or who was responsible. And that makes it difficult to judge what needs to happen next. It's possible that there was a group of men in leadership positions that made a decision as a group. It's also possible that there was one person who used horrible judgement and didn't pass this along to the right people. So - is it a system failure in which multiple people should've taken action but instead ignored this guys actions? Or is it the failure of an individual who did that on their own? I don't know.

What I DO know is that the church has made a TON of headway in the last 5-10 years to expressly make sure all of their local leaders know that if there is a report of abuse, there is no expectation of some sacred and confidential confessional that cannot be violated. Bishops are to immediately call the church hotline as well as report it to the proper authorities.

And this is a HUGE step forward. About 20 years ago I was doing Child Protective Services intake and spoke with a man who identified himself as a Bishop who was concerned with a family in his congregation. The father had admitted to abuse (he didn't say what kind), and the Bishop was interested in finding out what the process was and what would happen next if he reported it. I went through that with him, then encouraged him to go forward with reporting the incident. His response was that he wasn't sure he was ready to do that yet, and was deciding if he could work with the family himself to address the issues first. Disappointing.

But - the reality is that not 6 months later I was in a social work class up at the U of U graduate school and had my least LDS-like professor (flaming feminist who hated men AND the LDS church) basically say the same thing. If she became aware of an incident of abuse within a family, she would try to work with them on it and only report it to the authorities if she began to see a pattern of repeated abuse.

Eddie's post deserves a second look. These situations are never simple, like we perceive and want them to be. There are terrible consequences all around, and we should not be so quick to deal out justice for those consequences, without prudence and due process.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Awful things were done by a prominent Mormon, welcome back ER! Has Byron stopped by yet?

[smokymountainrain]

No where have I said he should not be excommunicated, neither has anyone else in this thread. You realize he may already have been excommunicated correct? As Jeff has pointed out, we don't know what has happened in the past several years, let alone what actions may have been taken in past couple of months.

I am advocating for fairness and prudence, which is reasonable.

lol. have you said he should be ex'd? do you agree that he should be ex'd if he hasn't been yet?

[falafel]

Again, why would the church wait for law enforcement to investigate a crime that had the statute of limitations expire 22 years ago? The law will do little to no investigation on something like this. The only investigation that would have mattered in 2010 is their own investigation. The ball was dropped several times along the way and heads should roll for it. I doubt they drop it again.

From the allegation, it seems pretty clear to me that they could charge him with rape, which has no statute of limitations in Utah.

[falafel]

This is not a court of law! It's never pretended to be a court of law. The assumption that the same standards of evidence exists is silly.

Anyway, we're not convincing each other so ill move on. Just curious what people were saying.

Why? Do you have a problem with the standards of evidence and proof in the legal context? Do you think they are too rigorous for this context?

[falafel]

If he had a previous court of love and it came out that he used his position of power through the church to groom vulnerable individuals, he should have no calling in the church ever again. If there really is a zero tolerance policy, that is zero tolerance. Even as a second counselor in the SS presidency, he is placed in a position of Priesthood leadership/authority over others, which gives him a forum to groom again.

You know that a Sunday School presidency does, right? This is about the most innocuous calling I can think of. It likely has less contact with vulnerable women like those alleged victim than any other calling I can think of in the church. Even building cleaning coordinator has more potential for abuse ("hey, come help me clean this bathroom") than 2nd counselor in the SS presidency. They do nothing. Our ward doesn't even have a SS presidency (or president) -- that's how unimportant that calling is. There's no grooming going on from that calling that he wouldn't have access to from his everyday life and church attendance.

[falafel]

I've been with you on a lot of what you've said the last couple of days, but this part kind of made me chuckle a little. I realize its been awhile since you've been to church, so you probably deserve a free pass this time.

Looks like I'm a hack on this one. But to bluegoose.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I've been with you on a lot of what you've said the last couple of days, but this part kind of made me chuckle a little. I realize its been awhile since you've been to church, so you probably deserve a free pass this time.

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.

You know that a Sunday School presidency does, right? This is about the most innocuous calling I can think of. It likely has less contact with vulnerable women like those alleged victim than any other calling I can think of in the church. Even building cleaning coordinator has more potential for abuse ("hey, come help me clean this bathroom") than 2nd counselor in the SS presidency. They do nothing. Our ward doesn't even have a SS presidency (or president) -- that's how unimportant that calling is. There's no grooming going on from that calling that he wouldn't have access to from his everyday life and church attendance.

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

[tooblue]

lol. have you said he should be ex'd? do you agree that he should be ex'd if he hasn't been?

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.

[falafel]

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

Oh boy, it must be terrible being you, seeing goblins in every shadow.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Oh boy, it must be terrible being you, seeing goblins in every shadow.

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.

[jay santos]

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.

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