Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

337 Excellent

1 Follower

About webbles

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I get access denied when I try and view those links on the church website. Maybe only leaders can view them?
  2. If this had been a school that had sent a young man on an exchange program, would you be saying that the school failed in sending the young man on the exchange program? Both the church and the school were not aware of what he did. Both the church and the school immediately sent him back home when they discovered what he had done. Would you blame the school for sending the young man in the first place? Or it was a business that sent a young man on a business trip where he would live and work for several months. Would you say that the business failed because it sent the young man in the first place?
  3. Not sure how the linked story shows how the church failed. It actually shows that once the church found out, they immediately sent him home. That story is a success story for victims.
  4. What document are you talking about? I have been using the document you linked to. That document is definitely not from the church.
  5. This makes me wonder if you even read your own document. Yes, the document doesn't include everything. I don't doubt that abuse happens in the church. Abuse happens all over the world and is in every aspect of our society, from schools, to government, to churches, to community, to jobs. Abuse happens and it is absolutely horrible. But as you yourself said: "actually having a track record of going after abusers, putting people in jail, taking care of victims - actions speak much louder than words". Based off that document, the church does have an "actual track record of going after abusers, putting people in jail, taking care of victims". Obviously, it didn't do that in your cases. And that is a sad thing. But that is years ago (unless I'm misjudging when it happened). The church (and society) was a lot different. The hotline was only added in the 90s. The "believe women" happened just last year. To say that the church is failing victims because of what it did or did not do in the past is ignoring all of what it is doing now.
  6. Reading through those cases, it showed that the church (where it was actually involved and not just a school teacher who happened to be a member abusing a student) actually was involved in stopping the abuse. And even in the cases where the church wasn't involved, when a church leader first heard about it, they notified the authorities. The policies of the church are working. Your document proved that to me. Several of the cases had a notice that a lawyer from the church's law firm notified authorities. The only reason that lawyer would contact the authorities is if the hotline was being used. It is being used and it is actually working to stop abuse.
  7. I went backwards through that document and looked at 20 of the cases in the last decade. I tried to annotate how many of the cases were caused by church leaders or where a background would have helped. For church leaders, three of 20 cases were caused by a church leader: YM Leader, Sunday School Teacher, and "Youth Leader" (I think it would probably be Primary teacher based on the age of the victim). For background checks, the number was harder to determine. There were 5 instances where a background check could have found something. But of those five, only 2 might have prevented the attacker. The other 3 are only related to the church because the attacker or victim is a member. Of the 20 cases, only 7 were actually church related. The others were school, neighborhood, family, etc. The only reason they are in that list is because either the perpetrator or the victim where member of the church. After reading those cases, I don't see an epidemic in the church. I've actually come away with a better view of how the church is handling abuse.
  8. I haven't heard of BY even knowing about the Willy handcart company until after they had left. Just wondering where you read that BY knew about them and overrode objections?
  9. Probably because the spouses don't see the need for going spousal support groups. I understand that a lot of times, the spouse believes the problem is with their addict spouse and so the addict needs to go to the group to be fixed. There just isn't a demand for more support groups. As I mentioned earlier, the church is advertising them through the stakes. We had both an addict and his wife tell us about both groups and invited anyone to attend that wanted to. Also, they are not "support groups for abusers". They are "addiction recovery groups". They are meant to ensure that the addict stops hiding the fact that they have an addiction and to make sure that they follow the 12 steps to heal. When I hear "support groups", I think of people trying to improve your moral and pat your back. That isn't the purpose of those meetings.
  10. I couldn't find 70 but I did find 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4YKNK51xPk and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=211KMvwaEKE They don't have links, though.
  11. In the interview, he stated that he confessed about two things: viewing a sister missionary's breasts and rubbing the buttocks of another woman (I can't figure out if she was a sister missionary or just a former sister missionary). Based off how he explained those two acts to the police officer made me think that he would be downplaying those acts to his church leader.
  12. No, I am not minimizing what probably happened. My comment wasn't even about what probably happened. My comment was about what the Bishop probably confessed. How much did his bishop or other church leaders know about what he did? That's what this case is about. If church authorities knew he was a predator and still left him in that position or called him to that position, then that is a big problem. But, reading and listening to Bishop, I don't think he would have really confessed the truth. Even in his confession to the police, he is blaming his "natural man", his marriage, and even the victim.
  13. I don't know how you got that impression from what I wrote. I actually do believe that Bishop did bad things.
  14. But the question is "what did he confess to"? It sounds like he just confessed to seeing a sister missionary's bare breasts and touching a sister missionary's buttocks. He could have easily downplayed that so that his bishop thought they were accidents or were caused by the sister missionaries. From hearing Bishop speak, it sounds very much like he doesn't really confess to things. He just makes up reasons on why he is a bad person ("natural man") and blames others (such as the victims and his wives) on why these things happen to him. I don't trust that Bishop actually confessed enough details to his bishop that would have triggered his release or even caused the bishop to want to escalate the issue.
  15. I ran some numbers based off of the list from Todd Comptom (grabbed form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith's_wives). Out of the 33 marriages after Emma Smith, 9 of them (27%) were to woman older than him. The women older than him were on average 10 years older. The women younger than him were on average 13 years younger. All the women were on average only 7 years younger than him. Using the "half age plus seven" rule of thumb on dating and marriage, 19 of the women (58%) were within that range. So, it does look like he was "targeting" women across a wide variety of ages and most of his marriages (58%) would be acceptable under the "half age plus seven" rule of thumb.
  • Create New...