(Now Former) Bishop in Draper Charged with Sex Offenses

[Jeanne]

Question:   This may be for Stake Presidents or former SP's.  Do you ask these detailed questions to those you are interviewing for ward bishops?  What kind of questions are asked and how does this power of discernment work for those questions?   And all this, I hope after checking for backgrounds...if not...why not?

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Policy and procedure violations aside, we have to assume he was called of god to be a bishop.

Yes, we do in the same manner that Judas was called of God. Now, what is your point really rather than snide comments?

[FunOnlineMan]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Yes, we do in the same manner that Judas was called of God. Now, what is your point really rather than snide comments?

I just can’t reconcile god putting someone he knows so well into a position like that. You clearly have found some way to reconcile it, and you’re the second person to use Judas as a comparison to this completely different situation.

That must be what I missed. I’ll hit the books.

 

[Storm Rider]

24 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

I just can’t reconcile god putting someone he knows so well into a position like that. You clearly have found some way to reconcile it, and you’re the second person to use Judas as a comparison to this completely different situation.

That must be what I missed. I’ll hit the books.

 

Fun, you appear to think that IF someone is called to a position of authority then they must be beyond temptations. I see leaders as human as each of us is human. They are just as capable of sinning, erring or making mistakes as everyone else. Though they might for a time be very attentive as a disciple of Jesus Christ, they can fall or backslide just as everyone else does. 

I used the example of Judas because the Son of God called him to serve as an apostle - he was willing to serve. Yet, he still fell and was willing to sell the life of his Savior and Master for a few pieces of silver. 

Leaders have not forfeited their humanity. They remain human and have free agency to either continue on the path of holiness or to sin.  This individual chose the passions of the flesh rather than the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit.  

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Leaders have not forfeited their humanity. They remain human and have free agency to either continue on the path of holiness or to sin.  This individual chose the passions of the flesh rather than the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit.  

In light of this comment (which I agree with), how do you reconcile President Woodruff’s statement in 1890 that LDS like to quote:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”

Are Presidents of the church different?  Is their agency revoked or limited because of this promise?  Do they have their agency, but are killed if they do something to lead the church astray?

[FunOnlineMan]

 

25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Leaders have not forfeited their humanity. They remain human and have free agency to either continue on the path of holiness or to sin.  This individual chose the passions of the flesh rather than the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit.  

I’d be inclined to argue with your use of humanity here.

I don’t expect mortal leaders to be deities, but I should expect deities to be able to pick mortal leaders that aren’t potential child molesters. God should be privy to those facts, unless I’m rusty on my theology.

If so, he should just call a bishop that has a tendency to sneak out for an R-rated movie every now and again instead of the one that will prey on children. The selection pool can’t possibly be so limited in Draper, Utah. 

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Fun, you appear to think that IF someone is called to a position of authority then they must be beyond temptations. I see leaders as human as each of us is human. They are just as capable of sinning, erring or making mistakes as everyone else. Though they might for a time be very attentive as a disciple of Jesus Christ, they can fall or backslide just as everyone else does. 

I used the example of Judas because the Son of God called him to serve as an apostle - he was willing to serve. Yet, he still fell and was willing to sell the life of his Savior and Master for a few pieces of silver. 

Leaders have not forfeited their humanity. They remain human and have free agency to either continue on the path of holiness or to sin.  This individual chose the passions of the flesh rather than the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit.  

God would not put children in harms way, so definitely not an inspired calling.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Bingo...it is  shame that we excommunicate people who want to protect children!

Darn right!

[changed]

On 12/13/2018 at 3:00 PM, smac97 said:

See here:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/12/13/former-mormon-bishop/

https://kjzz.com/news/local/former-lds-church-bishop-charged-with-sex-abuse-lewdness

https://fox13now.com/2018/12/13/lds-bishop-charged-with-sex-abuse-removed-from-position-in-church/

A few thoughts:

1. If these allegations are true, this is extremely disturbing and disgusting stuff, and I hope the perp is punished to the fullest extent possible.

2. The bishop apparently took one victim out to get milkshakes, and inappropriate conduct occurred during that time.  In other words, the bishop was not chaperoned.

3. In another instance involving another victim, the bishop locked himself and the victim in a car and insisted on having an inappropriate discussion.  Again, the bishop was not chaperoned.

4. In another instance, the bishop visited the victim in his (the victim's) home (entering unannounced, even), and engaged in inappropriate conduct while there.  Again, the bishop was not chaperoned.

5. The bishop was apparently still functioning as a bishop.  The Church released him immediately upon learning about the allegations, and also "took steps to notify authorities and supported their investigation."

In sum, it looks like the bishop was acting way out of bounds for most or all of the misconduct.  Inappropriate touching.  Inappropriate visits.  Not accompanied or chaperoned.

Thanks,

-Smac

• Franklin Curtis: (LDS Church) paid a three million dollar settlement to Jeremiah Scott - this is your tithing money you know...
• Timothy McCleve: pleaded guilty to sexually molesting children from his ward
• bishop Lon Kennard, Sr. was charged with 43 felony counts of sex abuse and sexual exploitation of children
• bishop Todd Michael Edwards was sentenced to three years in prison for molesting two teenage girls...A felony charge of witness intimidation was dismissed as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors after Edwards pleaded guilty ← tithing is used to keep sexual abuse cases "hush hush"
• LDS Church bishop Michael Wayne Coleman was arrested and charged with luring a minor for sexual exploitation after a forensic examination of his laptop and cellphone revealed sexually graphic conversations and an exchange of nude photographs with a teenaged student in Brazil.
• Darran Scott - abused boys

[changed]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

In light of this comment (which I agree with), how do you reconcile President Woodruff’s statement in 1890 that LDS like to quote:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”

Are Presidents of the church different?  Is their agency revoked or limited because of this promise?  Do they have their agency, but are killed if they do something to lead the church astray?

 

or the children of presidents of the church who are protected by the president of the church...

https://fox13now.com/2018/12/13/deposition-of-lds-church-president-sought-in-sex-abuse-lawsuit/

insider source https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16oVzQFjslK5iynDBxXeLOItw4DQNbdiD?fbclid=IwAR3e0eqER418AY3o-wtUHYTXsoBXL_-xX2B9nhLykvhO2NfLITiQfeFTuYo

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by changed

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

God would not put children in harms way, so definitely not an inspired calling.

How does that work though; does it match other situations we know about?  I mean, God sends children to parents every day where He knows that those parents are going to harm and/or abuse (or kill) those children.  (I'm not arguing whether or not the calling of that bishop was inspired, but only commenting on your statement that God would not put children in harm's way).

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

In light of this comment (which I agree with), how do you reconcile President Woodruff’s statement in 1890 that LDS like to quote:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”

Are Presidents of the church different?  Is their agency revoked or limited because of this promise?  Do they have their agency, but are killed if they do something to lead the church astray?

Presidents are different IMO. The argument of Woodruff is that God would remove him (kill him) first. One can of course disagree with Woodruff on that point, but it is generally seen as different.

This is different from just being an apostle I'd add, since of course those have been excommunicated over the years. 

I'd also add that the context of the quote is leading the Church into significant apostasy and not making bad choices in other areas. That I think the President definitely can do. I'd point to Brigham Young for an example of that.

Edited December 14, 2018 by clarkgoble

[MorningStar]

Gross. Have a nice excommunication, pervert! 

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

God would not put children in harms way, so definitely not an inspired calling.

While I can appreciate the sentiment on this, I don't know that the reasoning is sound.  If one believes in the God of the Bible, then He regularly put children in harm's way.  For example, Saul was commanded to kill the all of the Amalekites, including the children and infants.  Joshua was commanded to kill all of the inhabitants of the Promised Land.  By itself, the scriptures do not appear to support a blanket assumption of protection afforded to children.

That being said, the frequency with which these situations occur casts in to serious doubt the narrative that God is actively involved in the calling of leadership (IMO).

Edited December 14, 2018 by ttribe

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

God would not put children in harms way,

This ignores all of history. It also ignores the concept of agency.

[Exiled]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

While sexual sin is serious the scripture that puts it next to murder was specific instruction to Corianton who appears to have committed adultery (or possibly fornication) with a prostitute or (if you believe Nibley’s take) participated in some kind of fertility orgy.

Generalizing that statement to all sexual sin seems most unwise. I do not believe porn usage or other sexual slips (which are sins) to be comparable to murder or committing adultery based on that scripture.

Edit: My usual divide between sexual sin and SEXUAL SIN near to MURDER is how predatory it is. It seems to work pretty well. It also works well in other sin contexts to find out how predatory the sin is to determine seriousness.

So, do you think Tacenda's wish of ending Bishop/Youth interviews will be or should be granted?  I don't think it will be any time soon, if ever.

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, do you think Tacenda's wish of ending Bishop/Youth interviews will be or should be granted?  I don't think it will be any time soon, if ever.

I do not think it will end nor do I think it should end.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

God would not put children in harms way, so definitely not an inspired calling.

This planet exists because God chose to put all of his children in harm’s way. While I do not think it proves God does not love us if God were to show up at a Family Court with all the evidence laid out he would probably lose custody of all of us.

Edited December 15, 2018 by The Nehor

[FunOnlineMan]

 

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While I do not think it proves God does not love us if God were to show up at all  Family Court with all the evidence laid out he would probably lose custody of all of us.

I once did a thread on a thought like this.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

God would not put children in harms way, so definitely not an inspired calling.

That is not a God that exists. God does not "put" children in harm's way - humans do. Wars have killed millions upon millions of children - was God responsible for their deaths? Of course not, wicked humans kill and abuse children. 

Tacenda, you know better. 

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In light of this comment (which I agree with), how do you reconcile President Woodruff’s statement in 1890 that LDS like to quote:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”

Are Presidents of the church different?  Is their agency revoked or limited because of this promise?  Do they have their agency, but are killed if they do something to lead the church astray?

I think they are just as human as anyone else. Apostles have fallen in the past and some have repented and returned and others have remained damned - Judas being the first example. 

I have no judgment on President Woodruff's statement; it is a sincere hope, but I am more calloused than to have faith in it. I listen, I pray and seek confirmation of God's will. 

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

No, we don't.

What do you mean "we", Kimo Sabe?  

I've been witness to three incidents involving new calls to bishops and stake presidents where I was quite literally and directly informed by the Spirit that the man in question was legitimately called by God.  In each case in question, it occurred before the person was presented for sustaining.  This along with a lot of observation of local leaders, leads me to assume that these calls do come from God -- and note that I am not saying that there are no mistakes made; it's bound to happen.  Quite apart from the three experiences I mention, my overwhelming experience has been positivity with regards to bishops and stake presidents, and Relief Society, Elders Quorum Presidents and High Priest Group Leaders.  I've been an active member of the church since 1966, and the only true dud in leadership positions was me, once.  I was a clueless Elders Quorum President for a year.  I didn't do anything bad, mind you, I just wasn't very good at it.  It was a huge relief to be released -- especially since they let me be a stake missionary for 8 years after that.  That was a great blessing.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

God would not put children in harms way, so definitely not an inspired calling.

God puts children in harm's way every day.  Just coming down the birth canal there's a bit of a crap shoot whether the child is going to be breathing or not at the end.  The odds are good, most of the time, but...

When you strap your child into a car seat and head out onto the road, you are deliberately running the risk that some idiot has deliberately pumped himself full of alcohol at home or the bar, and may lose control of his vehicle, ramming your car head-on at 60 mph. Neither you nor your child is likely to survive in such a situation.  Did God do wrong to permit it?  Shouldn't you just stay home and not put your child at risk?

We're all going to die.  We're all going to sin.  The man or woman with the best of intentions can slip and make bad choices that damage others.  

Edited December 15, 2018 by Stargazer

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

 

I’d be inclined to argue with your use of humanity here.

I don’t expect mortal leaders to be deities, but I should expect deities to be able to pick mortal leaders that aren’t potential child molesters. God should be privy to those facts, unless I’m rusty on my theology.

If so, he should just call a bishop that has a tendency to sneak out for an R-rated movie every now and again instead of the one that will prey on children. The selection pool can’t possibly be so limited in Draper, Utah. 

I don't think you are rusty on theology, but I suggest that you have an unrealistic understanding of God and humans. Nowhere in scripture has it been taught that he calls perfect men; in fact, quite the opposite. He calls weak instruments and will make them strong IF they are willing to follow him.  I have never met a perfect human and I have sat in within feet of apostles and prophets in the temple - know that they are human and willing to serve God. 

You might want to spend a lot of time with the Old Testament. I know of no other scripture better suited to aid humans to understand the frailties of leaders and God's willingness to use them and call them to repentance. 

On the other hand, if you want a construct which allows you to not believe in God - that is another path. You just realize it is your choice and it has nothing to do with God. 

[let’s roll]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

God puts children in harm's way every day.  Just coming down the birth canal there's a bit of a crap shoot whether the child is going to be breathing or not at the end.  The odds are good, most of the time, but...

When you strap your child into a car seat and head out onto the road, you are deliberately running the risk that some idiot has deliberately pumped himself full of alcohol at home or the bar, and may lose control of his vehicle, ramming your car head-on at 60 mph. Neither you nor your child is likely to survive in such a situation.  Did God do wrong to permit it?  Shouldn't you just stay home and not put your child at risk?

We're all going to die.  We're all going to sin.  The man or woman with the best of intentions can slip and make bad choices that damage others.  

29,000 children under the age of 5 died today (and every day) of disease, neglect, starvation, war, etc.  God could have chosen to prevent each of those deaths, but stayed His hand.  

Similarly,the BofM relates the compelling story of a brutal mass murder of recent converts in front of two missionaries who had both the faith and the desire to prevent the murders, yet God bid them to stay their hands.

Agency is central to God’s plan and He rarely interferes with the consequences of our exercise of agency, even when it impacts the innocent, including children.

To those who wonder about the fairness of God’s actions, remember that children who die before reaching accountability inherit the Celestial Kingdom and, as for the rest of us, the scriptures teach that ALL will confess God’s judgments are just.  So whatever we may not now understand, we will ultimately both understand and agree is just.