High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

[Garden Girl]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

At the risk of sounding like I once lived in Duncan's stake, the sole time I raised my hand in opposition to a calling, it went ahead. Later the man was arrested for tax evasion and then -- I swear I'm not making this up! -- died of a heart attack in the courtroom on the morning of his trial. That's definitely one way of avoiding justice ...

Well... sort of...  😲

GG

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

Well... sort of...  😲

GG

Or leaping into the very maw of justice. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Alot can happen in 5 months:

• Concerned about Murdock’s access to youth and young women, it has now been confirmed to me that THREE SEPARATE FAITHFUL LDS CHURCH MEMBERS promptly reported Steven Murdock’s firing and details of the harassment to President Scott Buie.  Nonetheless, and totally inexplicably, Bishop Murdock was retained by President Buie as a Mormon bishop for five additional months after his firing.

I doubt this more then anything. Three “faithful” LDS reported the harassment and they rushed to Dehlin of all people to tell their story and not to the police or the general news media. What is the definition of “faithful” here? Seems like the whole sentence is oxymoronic, emphasis on the moronic.

On a lighter note I find Dehlin’s abuse of the Capslock key very offensive.

Edited August 23, 2019 by The Nehor

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

I'm curious though about, if this happens again with someone else, will the Church make a comment? I don't know but i'm going to throw it out there that this stuff happens more often than we know about.

Of course it happens more than you know.

So you want a notification every time someone makes a sexual sin?

What exactly is "this stuff"?

And who is eligible to have their sins revealed online?

Should the church comment publicly on every person's sins?

Edited August 23, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Tacenda, does Dehlin say anywhere he vetted those who contacted him that they were who they said they were?  Or does it appear he accepted the info as accurate without checking?

Some of his info will likely be researched by reporters (workplace harassment), accusation of an affair might not interest them as not criminal, etc, so I am not sure how that can be confirmed without his partner coming forward or a confession. 

For those who claimed they informed the SP, is there documentation?

I am not suggesting Dehlin is lying about what people are telling him or that what he was told were lies. The difficulty is based on what has so far been presented we can’t know one way or the other. These are not testimonies given in court or to police, but people volunteering alleged info apparently after they read/heard something off of Facebook...internet culture being what it is, we need to be cautious imo. 

Anyone track down a police report yet?  I believe the arrest was the 13th.  I can’t figure out how to get last week’s crime blotter on the Metro Nashville Police Department website. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Calm

[rchorse]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Those responding to Tacenda's very long post - unless you are responding to specific points in it will you please consider shortening it some way in the quote? There's a whole lot of scrolling going on to get to the reply portion of what you are quoting and it is easily missed. 

Just FYI, there's a little down arrow on the left side of the quote box that lets you collapse the quote (see the yellow area below). It makes scrolling through those long quotes much less tiresome.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and then there's this on John Dehlin

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/

 

I was unaware of the sexual misconduct accusations leveled against him (mentioned here), or maybe I had heard it but had forgotten.  Such accusations seem to be everywhere in this day and age.

[Judd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Tacenda, does Dehlin say anywhere he vetted those who contacted him that they were who they said they were?  Or does it appear he accepted the info as accurate without checking?

“When Dehlin speaks, the vetting has been done.”

[changed]

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am curious as to your perspective on Judas.  Do you fault Jesus for calling him to be an apostle?

Thanks,

-Smac

Of all the replies, this is the one I like the best.  As everyone knows, I left the church after a bishopric member abused my kids - and many other kids (he is now in jail, without probation, for the rest of his life).  Abuse at the hands of an authority figure - more than trauma - but betrayal trauma - is something no one understands until they experience it themselves.  In my case, yes, thechurch knew about the guy - he was in addiction recovery group, and had his first temple marriage ended from it - the church knew for years and years, and still put him in leadership positions.  

So - Judas - the lesson of Judas for me is God does not want anyone relying on apostles or prophets.  We are supposed to go straight to the Savior, straight to God, no middle man.  The apostles in the NT, and if you can call them that, the apostles now - they cannot heal people, cannot walk on water, push kids away (suffer the children to come unto me and forbid them not...)... deny Christ 3 times, cannot stay awake and on and on and on.  

Part of the journey takes place in a community, and part of it - the most spiritual part- takes place as an individual.  No borrowed light, no middleman, just mono-e-mono.  Spiritual self-reliance is born when one finds it impossible to rely on their community....  it takes drastic measures to tear one away from a beloved community which has carried one for years, through so much - drastic measures to tear that support away from a dependant believer- to leave the broad way, and be pushed into the narrow individual path...  all religious groups lead to the same narrow path in the end - all groups are fallen to make room for the second, sacred, individual journey...

Those who are not ready to leave their community yet, it's ok, community is part of the journey.... when you are called to a new path, as we all are, know there is beautiful stuff on the other side of that dark night if you are able to embrace your individual journey.  

Edited August 23, 2019 by changed

[Rain]

5 hours ago, rchorse said:

Just FYI, there's a little down arrow on the left side of the quote box that lets you collapse the quote (see the yellow area below). It makes scrolling through those long quotes much less tiresome.

Thank you!

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, changed said:

this is the one I like the best. 

I have a lot of compassion for your awful experience.  I will do my best to be sensitive to that as I respond here. 

If you were willing to read through this long thread you will find that several times the OP requested that the derailment by such posts as Smac not be made.  smac respectfully stood down. 

A new thread was created to honor that request.  Then you came in and disregarded, I assume because you hadn’t read the thread? 

I think your point of view is completely valid.  Your feelings are valid.  However, I do suspect that perhaps you aren’t looking here this post for discourse but rather to proselytize and help people follow your path of leaving the church.  I don’t think this is the thread for that. 

 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Tacenda, does Dehlin say anywhere he vetted those who contacted him that they were who they said they were?  Or does it appear he accepted the info as accurate without checking?

Some of his info will likely be researched by reporters (workplace harassment), accusation of an affair might not interest them as not criminal, etc, so I am not sure how that can be confirmed without his parent coming forward or a confession. 

For those who claimed they informed the SP, is there documentation?

I am not suggesting Dehlin is lying about what people are telling him or that what he was told were lies. The difficulty is based on what has so far been presented we can’t know one way or the other. These are not testimonies given in court or to police, but people volunteering alleged info apparently after they read/heard something off of Facebook...internet culture being what it is, we need to be cautious imo. 

Anyone track down a police report yet?  I believe the arrest was the 13th.  I can’t figure out how to get last week’s crime blotter on the Metro Nashville Police Department website. 

I agree! It so happens not so long ago I did what I never thought I would do and created a username and joined the exmormonreddit board. Yesterday,  I ran across a thread by John Dehlin with his report about the Murdock case. And before your question here, which is such a coincidence, I asked nearly the same thing to John, and I was surprised he answered. Here's my question and his response below, I don't even care if someone knows my username that I use, could care less anymore! 

Thread name:

"Voyeur/Bishop Steven Murdock: A Case Study in How the Mormon Church Ignores/Covers Up Abusive Behavior, Leaving Future Victims Vulnerable"

birchlane2 points·20 hours ago

John, do you ever fear that some of these witnesses may be lying? It's crossed my mind.

johndehlin7 points·17 hours ago

Yeah. I think about that all the time. And so with this, I tried to keep a super high bar. I focused on first-hand witnesses. People who worked directly with him - bosses, peers, and "underlings." I communicated with multiple actual victims. Also, people who were in his ward or stake. Neighbors. Other victims. And I made sure to communicate with people directly, and to corroborate stories across independent witnesses. And I cast a pretty wide net, so as to ensure witnesses from several independent domains

There's always a chance of people misleading me...and I would be truly horrified to falsely accuse anyone of anything...but I feel like I did my best to do due diligence....and I feel pretty confident about the story I told. And since releasing it, more people have come out of the woodwork to provide further corroboration.

But you ask an essential question.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

deleted for fear of derailment

Edited August 23, 2019 by Tacenda

[MustardSeed]

Delete.  Self diagnosis:drama queen.  Ha! 

And then i see that Tacenda was careful too.  

Edited August 23, 2019 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

Well I’ve done all I can do here.  

Thank you for trying so hard MS!  

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not suggesting Dehlin is lying about what people are telling him or that what he was told were lies.

To be clear I am suggesting that.

[changed]

44 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I have a lot of compassion for your awful experience.  I will do my best to be sensitive to that as I respond here. 

If you were willing to read through this long thread you will find that several times the OP requested that the derailment by such posts as Smac not be made.  smac respectfully stood down. 

A new thread was created to honor that request.  Then you came in and disregarded, I assume because you hadn’t read the thread? 

I think your point of view is completely valid.  Your feelings are valid.  However, I do suspect that perhaps you aren’t looking here this post for discourse but rather to proselytize and help people follow your path of leaving the church.  I don’t think this is the thread for that. 

 

Sorry - I had not read all the posts, I will look for the new thread.

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree! It so happens not so long ago I did what I never thought I would do and created a username and joined the exmormonreddit board. Yesterday,  I ran across a thread by John Dehlin with his report about the Murdock case. And before your question here, which is such a coincidence, I asked nearly the same thing to John, and I was surprised he answered. Here's my question and his response below, I don't even care if someone knows my username that I use, could care less anymore! 

Thread name:

"Voyeur/Bishop Steven Murdock: A Case Study in How the Mormon Church Ignores/Covers Up Abusive Behavior, Leaving Future Victims Vulnerable"

birchlane2 points·20 hours ago

John, do you ever fear that some of these witnesses may be lying? It's crossed my mind.

johndehlin7 points·17 hours ago

Yeah. I think about that all the time. And so with this, I tried to keep a super high bar. I focused on first-hand witnesses. People who worked directly with him - bosses, peers, and "underlings." I communicated with multiple actual victims. Also, people who were in his ward or stake. Neighbors. Other victims. And I made sure to communicate with people directly, and to corroborate stories across independent witnesses. And I cast a pretty wide net, so as to ensure witnesses from several independent domains

There's always a chance of people misleading me...and I would be truly horrified to falsely accuse anyone of anything...but I feel like I did my best to do due diligence....and I feel pretty confident about the story I told. And since releasing it, more people have come out of the woodwork to provide further corroboration.

But you ask an essential question.

 

 

See, that seems unlikely. First he said he had been contacted by many people and now he “cast a wide net”. How did he know who to contact? Got a ward list? He did this all in a few days? All these supposedly faithful people had no problem unburdening themselves to John Dehlin? Yeah, something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it is not that they are not willing to sell Greenland.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

See, that seems unlikely. First he said he had been contacted by many people and now he “cast a wide net”. How did he know who to contact? Got a ward list? He did this all in a few days? All these supposedly faithful people had no problem unburdening themselves to John Dehlin? Yeah, something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it is not that they are not willing to sell Greenland.

Unfortunately he said nothing about how he confirmed the identities. Or how he ensured they were independent of each other. If he called people, how did he get the info and how did he confirm they knew?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

birchlane2 points·20 hours ago

John, do you ever fear that some of these witnesses may be lying? It's crossed my mind.

johndehlin7 points·17 hours ago

Yeah. I think about that all the time.

Right.  I'm sure it keeps him up at night.

For pete's sake, he makes his living off publishing stories/podcasts that disparage other people.

Quote

And so with this, I tried to keep a super high bar.

Not too high, it seems.  All he is doing is peddling hearsay.  Gossip.

Quote

I focused on first-hand witnesses.

How does he know they are first-hand (percipient) witnesses?  How does he gauge their credibility?  They competency?  What sort of factual foundation did he lay?  What evidence substantiates or corroborates their claims?  Did he review this evidence?  Does he have it?  Has anyone else seen it?

He seems to be relying completely on the say-so of people he doesn't know.  He's taking their say-so as the Gospel Truth.  And we're supposed to take his word about their word.  Hearsay within hearsay (and perhaps not even that).

This is a "super high bar?"

Quote

People who worked directly with him - bosses, peers, and "underlings."

Again, how does he know this?  Have they provided evidence of having "worked directly with" Murdock?  Has he seen it?  Has anyone else?  

Quote

I communicated with multiple actual victims.

Meh.  How does he know they are "actual victims?"  All he has is their say-so, and all we have is his say-so of their (anonymous) say-so.

Quote

Also, people who were in his ward or stake. Neighbors. Other victims. And I made sure to communicate with people directly, and to corroborate stories across independent witnesses. And I cast a pretty wide net, so as to ensure witnesses from several independent domains.

Who are these people?  What are their names?  Where do they live?  How did they "corroborate" each other?  What sort of questions did Dehlin ask?  Did he ask leading questions?   Loaded questions?

And if he really did "cast a pretty wide net," then how careful was he in scrutinizing what he "caught?"

Quote

There's always a chance of people misleading me...

And there's always a chance of Dehlin misleading us.

That's rather than problem with hearsay evidence, particularly gossipy hearsay-within-hearsay stuff like what Dehlin is selling.

Quote

and I would be truly horrified to falsely accuse anyone of anything...

Right.  He's publishing gossip about a story that has no significance at all, except that it damages the reputation of the church from which he was excommunicated.  He has a financial interest in drumming up controversies about the Church.  And an obvious and pervasive and significant bias.  His podcasts are overflowing with him and his interviewees meting out accusations and vitriol against the Church and its leaders (and often its members as well).  Somehow I think one more unsusbstantiated screed designed to disparage the Church will not keep him up at night.

And he has no training in any of this.  He's not in law enforcement.  He's not an attorney.  He's not a news reporter or a private investigator.  He has no licensure or other set of ethics or guidelines by which he has "investigated" this story.  He's not telling us who these people are, or giving us any verifiable information about them.  We just have to take his word as to their credibility.  And he really isn't in a position to say much of anything about their credibility.  Did he meet these people?  Or just talk with them via email/phone/online?

Quote

but I feel like I did my best to do due diligence....

Sounds like he's done nothing close to "due diligence."  He's just peddling gossip.  That's all.

I would not be surprised if Mr. Murdock ends up having a checkered past.  If he really did what he is accused of in Tennessee, then that was probably not his first rodeo.  People don't go from pure-as-the-driven-snow to pervy-mall-guy in a moment.  

But Dehlin has provided essentially nothing in terms of competent, probative evidence on this issue. 

As an attorney, I often see pro se litigants (people who are involved in a lawsuit, but defend themselves rather than hire an attorney) get frustrated at the procedural and evidentiary rules that the courts use to vet and admit and consider evidence.  These rules are very complex and in-depth, and for good reason.  For our legal system to work effectively and fairly, evidence needs to be relevant, material, competent, probative, and admissible.  And even when evidence is filtered through these rules, the courts still sometime end up getting the facts wrong.  These safeguards are not foolproof, but they are nevertheless important.

Mr. Dehlin hasn't used these safeguards, or anything even close to approximating them.  All he has done is peddle gossip and hearsay from what he claims to be anonymous sources.  And he has done so for no reason except that this story makes the Church look bad.  That's his job.  That's his revenue stream.  That's his bias.

Mr. Murdock may well be guilty of serious misconduct, both present and past.  But Dehlin has not provided any meaningful, probative evidence.  At present, and broadly speaking, the Presumption of Innocence should carry the day (at least as to his past).  Credulous acceptance of unsubstantiated, gossipy hearsay is not healthy, for us as individuals or as a society.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 23, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would not be surprised if Mr. Murdock ends up having a checkered past.  If he really did what he is accused of in Tennessee, then that was probably not his first rodeo.  People don't go from pure-as-the-driven-snow to pervy-mall-guy in a moment.  

This.  I would not be at all surprised if many of these reports were true and just the fact that so many are coming forward is disconcerting.  I do agree we should wait and see if anything else (documented) comes out or any other potential victims press charges.  It will be one to watch, but I wouldn't want to listen to this podcast.

This should (possibly) be easy to document:

Quote

In  March, 2017 – One of Bishop Murdock’s victims filed a formal report about his harassment, which led to Bishop Steven Murdock being terminated from his job with NFP .

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This.  I would not be at all surprised if many of these reports were true and just the fact that so many are coming forward is disconcerting.  I do agree we should wait and see if anything else (documented) comes out or any other potential victims press charges.  It will be one to watch, but I wouldn't want to listen to this podcast.

This should (possibly) be easy to document:

 

To be clear I Murdock is as guilty as sin and I would be surprised if there was not a pattern of activity before this incident. I still think Dehlin is full of it. The incidents about Dehlin being involved in sexual misconduct are much more definitive and substantiated then the gossip he is peddling.

I guess what I am saying is I hope they end up sharing a cell together.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To be clear I Murdock is as guilty as sin and I would be surprised if there was not a pattern of activity before this incident. I still think Dehlin is full of it. The incidents about Dehlin being involved in sexual misconduct are much more definitive and substantiated then the gossip he is peddling.

I guess what I am saying is I hope they end up sharing a cell together.

I don't follow Dehlin and I wasn't aware of any accusations against him.  Has anyone actually filed charges against him as in this case....or was he caught in the act like this guy?  If not, I wouldn't state "Dehlin being involved in sexual misconduct are much more definitive and substantiated" (at least not when compared to this specific case).

Do we have anything other than hearsay and gossip regarding the accusations against Dehlin?  (I really don't know....).

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't follow Dehlin and I wasn't aware of any accusations against him.  Has anyone actually filed charges against him as in this case....or was he caught in the act like this guy?  If not, I wouldn't state "Dehlin being involved in sexual misconduct are much more definitive and substantiated" (at least not when compared to this specific case).

Do we have anything other than hearsay and gossip regarding the accusations against Dehlin?  (I really don't know....).

Yeah, we have accounts at least purportedly written by the person involved about  Dehlin. To be clear I am not saying that the police investigation into Murdock on what happened at the store is not as convincing as what has been said about Dehlin. I think Murdock was caught dead to rights. I am saying the gossip about Dehlin’s possible sexual assault is more convincing then Dehlin’s gossip against Murdock (and the Stake President) about what happened before.

Edited August 23, 2019 by The Nehor

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, we have accounts at least purportedly written by the person involved about  Dehlin. To be clear I am not saying that the police investigation into Murdock on what happened at the store is not as convincing as what has been said about Dehlin. I think Murdock was caught dead to rights. I am saying the gossip about Dehlin’s possible sexual assault is more convincing then Dehlin’s gossip against Murdock (and the Stake President) about what happened before.

I'd have to read what's been stated about Dehlin, but I can't see that it would be "more convincing" than those involved in this case who have first hand accounts of this guy, plus at least one claim filed by an employee (that resulted in him being fired).

I'm not saying that Dehlin is innocent....I have no idea.  But I honestly can't see disregarding all of these member's, neighbor's, employee's, etc., first hand statements about this man and then 100% believing the same types of statements against Dehlin.  I'd weigh them both the same, with some skepticism and needing more evidence.  Of course with this guy, he was caught in the act and has had charges filed....so there's much more damning evidence, IMO.

I just can't see why you'd call one set of reports "gossip" when you then choose to believe similar reports about Dehlin.  

Edited August 23, 2019 by ALarson