Jump to content
smac97

Lawsuit Re: Sex Abuse Allegations Against Daughter of Pres. Nelson and Her Husband

Recommended Posts

@Scott Lloyd don't make the thread personal or bring up old contention.  No threadjacking.

@Kenngo1969 and @ALarson move along.  You've each said your piece.  From now on report posts you believe are problems.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It sounds bad, but members of the Satanic Temple, in this day and age, are not hood wearing, goat sacrificing, baby eating kinds of people.  They don't even actually believe in satan.

I'm sorry, but I have it on good authority that the name of a church is the best indicator as to what they believe and whom they worship. 

So I don't care what they say, if they call themselves the "Satanic Temple", then they must worship Satan. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the reference for the Miles' attorney being the one to make their name public, not Vernon:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900034840/bountiful-couple-denies-decades-old-allegations-of-abuse.html

Quote

The couple was identified only as John and Jane Doe in the suit, but an attorney for the defendants identified them as Brenda and Richard Miles, the daughter and son-in-law of President Russell M. Nelson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often called the Mormon church.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

But the FOI requests are not documents that they were involved in producing, they are only reporting them.  The link provided in their work that I posted has no commentary attached to them, but are the original documents.

Should we discount documents that consig posted for the Bishop-Denson case based on any suspicion he might be biased against the Church?  Or is it appropriate to assume that the BYU Police file and Denson draft letter are useful for what they are claimed to be?

Nothing wrong with the documents on Snow . They are interesting and actually lead me to ask more questions about her motives and role in destroying the computer equipment.  (It seems she had given them the equipment). It also highlights the difficulty of working with family and friends who can turn on you in the blink of an eye. One reason I steered from tutoring friends kids, and made only one exception for my brother's daughter.  

 

I'll add them to the timeline.

 

I quite liked their tenets, but digging deeper into their methods and motives,  I felt it was best not to use their links. If I had done it, I would have probably been hammered by the same people on here now supporting them.  I'll include a comment on who they are and their motives. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, kllindley said:

Please don't accuse me of saying something I did not.  I stated that it was exceptionally unlikely.  I did not state that it never happens.

And you may not remember my profession, but you earlier asked me about my professional experience before that comment and I answered.    

I apologise. This is a fast paced thread discussing difficult and emotive issues. Exceptionally unlikely things do happen. I've  learned that from my background in historical study. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Calm said:

There is nothing inherently wrong with having studied a case and coming to a decision before being called as a jury member as long as you don't pretend to be ignorant and/or impartial whenasked to serve as a jury member.  We are not supposed to live our lives uneducated about the news just in case we get called up for jury duty for a particular case.

I didn’t say there was anything “inherently wrong” with it. I only said that the inability to muster a presumption of innocence in a case renders one unqualified to sit as a juror on that case. 

There’s nothing “inherently wrong” with being judged unqualified for jury service either. There are certain factors that must be considered and evaluated. That’s the reason for the voir dire and challenge procedures in the jury-selection phase of a trial. The last time I was called up for jury service, I was excused after voir dire examination, ostensibly because I was a newspaper reporter, though I hadn’t covered courts for some two decades. I might have disagreed that this rendered me unqualified for jury service in the case, but apparently it was enough to make either the prosecution or defense (or perhaps both) or the judge (or perhaps all three) uncomfortable about empaneling me. I didn’t feel shamed or insulted by having been excused. There was nothing “inherently wrong” with my professional background as a journalist.  Circumstances were what they were, and the court officers have the right to be selective in whom they deem to be qualified. I recognized that. 

So I stand by my opinion, contra ALarson, that it’s fair to ask whether one is qualified for jury service if one is incapable initially of a default presumption of innocence in a case. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, kllindley said:

Honestly, does the same standard of conduct apply not to Abulafia?  I don't know how Kenngo's comment was any more insulting than her attack on my professional integrity or her questioning the well-being of vulnerable children working with me.   Why did you not call her out on that?  

Kllindley, in being frank here. My feathers were somewhat ruffled by your approach to the learning curve that 80s therapists needed to go through as child abuse of any sort gained more traction as a real phenomenon.  

As someone who trained in the 80s and then again in the 90s in a linked field (child education and development) we were, are and always will be, looking to improve practice..often politics and idealistic notions got and gets in the way, but ah well. 

Just a relatively benign question. As a therapist, did you watch the documentary that Cinepro linked to? I found it incredibly helpful in contextualising what was going on.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I apologise. This is a fast paced thread discussing difficult and emotive issues. Exceptionally unlikely things do happen. I've  learned that from my background in historical study. 

Apology accepted. I understand that it was and continues to be an emotional discussion. 

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Kllindley, in being frank here. My feathers were somewhat ruffled by your approach to the learning curve that 80s therapists needed to go through as child abuse of any sort gained more traction as a real phenomenon.  

As someone who trained in the 80s and then again in the 90s in a linked field (child education and development) we were, are and always will be, looking to improve practice..often politics and idealistic notions got and gets in the way, but ah well. 

Just a relatively benign question. As a therapist, did you watch the documentary that Cinepro linked to? I found it incredibly helpful in contextualising what was going on.  

 

I did watch it.  I think it may be helpful to clarify my approach to those practitioners and the techniques they were using.  

I don't blame them for their best efforts at the time.  I firmly believe that even back then, some therapists-including Barbara Snow-were intentionally doing things that violated the best practices and ethical guidelines of the profession. Trying to help children who they believed to be victims of abuse (some or even many of whom certainly were victims) is not something I hold against them. I understand that our field is constantly changing as we learn more. We do the best we can with the understanding we have.

The biggest concern I have is what happened next. As new information came to light, professional organizations developed clear guidelines and renounced former practices that were harmful. The vast majority of professionals acknowledged the new research and adapted their efforts to help people accordingly. It appears that some, like Snow and Smith, were unwilling to admit that their past approach might have been flawed. I don't see that either of them has ever acknowledged that their methods may have been unethical or morally wrong. I don't see that either of them has acknowledged that the allegations they elicited might even possibly be inaccurate.  It is clear that Barbara Snow continued to use these techniques long after they were discredited, if she has ever stopped. That is what bothers me the most about this whole case. 

If a teacher we're to insist that the way they did it on the 80s was the right way and all the developments in the last three decades were just nonsense - to the point that they refused to change their teaching style, would you be bothered? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I stand by my opinion, contra ALarson, that it’s fair to ask whether one is qualified for jury service if one is incapable initially of a default presumption of innocence in a case. 

I definitely agree with you that it's a fair question (and fair to discuss) in general.  But when someone personalizes it into an attack or insult directed towards only one person, that is wrong to do here.

That was the point I was making, and now I'm moving on as directed by the mods.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, kllindley said:

Yes, I agree that was personal (I honestly did not see that post before now).  I'm glad to see she has now apologized to you for that comment.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Hestia said:

@Scott Lloyd don't make the thread personal or bring up old contention.  No threadjacking.

@Kenngo1969 and @ALarson move along.  You've each said your piece.  From now on report posts you believe are problems.

While, largely, I have ceased my participation on this thread (and will likely do so on the Board as a whole), anytime I have "reported posts (I) believe are problems," those reports have, insofar as I am aware, been largely ignored by the Mods.  Notwithstanding the purported rules, there seem to be a fair number of double standards in play as to how, when, and against whom the rules are enforced.  But it ain't my circus! :rolleyes:  All ya'all have fun.

@Kenngo1969 the mods don't always see things the same way that the posters do.  If it makes you feel any better, the majority of all the reports  we receive are marked as completed without any action by any of the mods.  If we did something for every report that we received, a fair number of posters would be banned all the time.  So, you're welcome.

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

While, largely, I have ceased my participation on this thread (and will likely do so on the Board as a whole), anytime I have "reported posts (I) believe are problems," those reports have, insofar as I am aware, been largely ignored by the Mods.  Notwithstanding the purported rules, there seem to be a fair number of double standards in play as to how, when, and against whom the rules are enforced.  But it ain't my circus! :rolleyes:  All ya'all have fun.

I rarely report posts, and when I do, it’s for something pretty clear cut — like failure to comply with a CFR or for being abusive or insulting. But my experience has been like Kenngo’s: I am routinely ignored — to the point where I am disenchanted with the “report” option. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/7/2018 at 10:02 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

While, largely, I have ceased my participation on this thread (and will likely do so on the Board as a whole), anytime I have "reported posts (I) believe are problems," those reports have, insofar as I am aware, been largely ignored by the Mods.  Notwithstanding the purported rules, there seem to be a fair number of double standards in play as to how, when, and against whom the rules are enforced.  But it ain't my circus! :rolleyes:  All ya'all have fun.

@Kenngo1969 the mods don't always see things the same way that the posters do.  If it makes you feel any better, the majority of all the reports  we receive are marked as completed without any action by any of the mods.  If we did something for every report that we received, a fair number of posters would be banned all the time.  So, you're welcome.

Heh.  Translation?  "We could ban you.  You should be grateful that We, The All-Powerful Mods, have deigned to continue to allow you to participate on this thread and on this Board."  How very kind of you, but, nope!  As much as I deeply, deeply appreciate your very kind invitation for me to lick your boots, I ain't doin' it.  As I said, this ain't MY circus!  All ya'all have fun!!

@Kenngo1969, the translation is that you aren't being treated any differently than any other poster.  We decide to take no action on your reports at the same frequency that we decide to take no action when your posts are reported by others.  Some posters will complain that we don't take their reports seriously enough, without realizing how much they themselves benefit from us not taking all reports as seriously as the reporter might like.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Heh.  Translation?  "We could ban you.  You should be grateful that We, The All-Powerful Mods, have deigned to continue to allow you to participate on this thread and on this Board."  How very kind of you, but, nope!  As much as I deeply, deeply appreciate your very kind invitation for me to lick your boots, I ain't doin' it.  As I said, this ain't MY circus!  All ya'all have fun!!

Kenngo, I’m sharing your frustration, but I hope you will reconsider your intent to curtail your participation on the board. You provide a rational voice here of the sort we have already lost too much of. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Kenngo, I’m sharing your frustration, but I hope you will reconsider your intent to curtail your participation on the board. You provide a rational voice here of the sort we have already lost too much of. 

Thank you for the kind words, Scott.  I appreciate them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/7/2018 at 10:29 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I rarely report posts, and when I do, it’s for something pretty clear cut — like failure to comply with a CFR or for being abusive or insulting. But my experience has been like Kenngo’s: I am routinely ignored — to the point where I am disenchanted with the “report” option. 

2m22az.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So that's you, eh, Scott, "The Most Interesting Man in the World"?  You've been holding out on us!  Do tell!

(If you don't follow Dos Equis beer advertisements and have no idea what I'm talking about, I can hardly blame you: Feel free to ignore me. ;))

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So that's you, eh, Scott, "The Most Interesting Man in the World"?  You've been holding out on us!  Do tell!

(If you don't follow Dos Equis beer advertisements and have no idea what I'm talking about, I can hardly blame you: Feel free to ignore me. ;))

I had made up my mind to ignore Cinepro, as I had no clue who the dude in the picture is. 

Even now, I don’t know what he’s getting at, so if it was meant as an insult, it was lost on me. 

But thanks for trying to clear it up!

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

FYI, this is a great podcast about memory:

Free Brian Williams

Quote

"Sorry Dude, I don’t remember you being on my aircraft.'"

NBC news anchor Brian Williams told a war story on national television. It wasn’t true. But does that make him a liar? Part two of Revisionist History’s memory series asks why we insist that lapses of memory must also be lapses of character.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

FYI, this is a great podcast about memory:

Free Brian Williams

Quote

"Sorry Dude, I don’t remember you being on my aircraft.'"

NBC news anchor Brian Williams told a war story on national television. It wasn’t true. But does that make him a liar? Part two of Revisionist History’s memory series asks why we insist that lapses of memory must also be lapses of character.

 

Good stuff.

I wonder if it could be applied to people like the early leaders of the Church (particularly Joseph Smith).

Thanks

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

I am so so sorry for resurrecting this thread, been doing that a lot lately. But wanted to share a Netflix movie called "Abducted in Plain Sight", or more documentary about Jan Broberg. I was flabberghasted that the parents, and the law, and even the church literally did hardly anything to stop this poor girl's abuse.

It must have affected me after watching, because I woke up totally shaken when I dreamed I was at a park and left my imaginary grandson as a little toddler with a man we had just met at the park, to shop at a little shop next door. When I realised my mistake I took off running to find them. And suddenly woke up.

Then I recalled how I had been so dumb to let my little girl play with another boy in the neighborhood at his house with just the dad home. And my little girl had come home and told me that the dad had touched her private parts when she got on a counter to reach for some candy out of the cupboard. I went to the bishop, they were in our ward, and to the police, but they couldn't flat out ask her if she'd been touched etc. I think because of all this that went on in the eighties and false memories. And how they had to change the way that they interview children. Anyhow, it changed me forever, and I hopefully am not a naive person like I was, about not thinking someone could harm my child like that. 

This Broberg family, certainly were that naive as well. I wondered if as LDS we have been way too naive to how others can harm, thinking they'd never do that or something. I'm sure it's gotten a lot better nowadays. https://www.netflix.com/title/81000864

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/6/2018 at 6:30 PM, ALarson said:

I highly doubt I did that exact thing (remind me what that was regarding?  Sounds like a bit of a misrepresentation, but I'll own it if I really did do that! :) ). 

But as I stated above, I know that I've not been perfect on here and I honestly do try to apologize if I misspeak (I just did so on the previous page on this thread).

Once again though, that does not excuse the personal attack from Kenngo.    I hope you see that was wrong to do when he has no idea about any of the details of that other case.

Ha...did a search and found what you're referring to:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70952-spider-man-has-left-the-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209849606

 

I'd actually have to revisit that thread to see if I misspoke....I might still believe you were being foolish or making yourself look like a fool :)   (just teasing a bit!).....

Sorry if I offended you at the time...I really mean that.

The classic non-apology apology. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I am so so sorry for resurrecting this thread, been doing that a lot lately. But wanted to share a Netflix movie called "Abducted in Plain Sight", or more documentary about Jan Broberg. I was flabberghasted that the parents, and the law, and even the church literally did hardly anything to stop this poor girl's abuse.

It must have affected me after watching, because I woke up totally shaken when I dreamed I was at a park and left my imaginary grandson as a little toddler with a man we had just met at the park, to shop at a little shop next door. When I realised my mistake I took off running to find them. And suddenly woke up.

Then I recalled how I had been so dumb to let my little girl play with another boy in the neighborhood at his house with just the dad home. And my little girl had come home and told me that the dad had touched her private parts when she got on a counter to reach for some candy out of the cupboard. I went to the bishop, they were in our ward, and to the police, but they couldn't flat out ask her if she'd been touched etc. I think because of all this that went on in the eighties and false memories. And how they had to change the way that they interview children. Anyhow, it changed me forever, and I hopefully am not a naive person like I was, about not thinking someone could harm my child like that. 

This Broberg family, certainly were that naive as well. I wondered if as LDS we have been way too naive to how others can harm, thinking they'd never do that or something. I'm sure it's gotten a lot better nowadays. https://www.netflix.com/title/81000864

 

You have just given me something to watch today.  Thank you.  I have heard of this before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×