Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bluebell

High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Cfr please. I would like to see how they determine that. 

https://pcautah.org/

Most children do not report sexual
abuse. In fact, 88% of adults who were
sexually abused as children stated they
never reported the abuse. It is estimated
that only 1 in 10 victims will report abuse.

It states on this website that reporting is rare. Also, there is a new program that they are taking to the schools. I was sub'g at an elementary school one day when a woman came in to teach it. There is a story of a family on the website, a video under "A Utah Family's Story, where the girls and their mother talk about it. The girls said they wouldn't have known something was wrong until they heard that what was happening to them was wrong, what their father was doing. They thought it was a normal thing in everyone's family. Their father worked for the governer of Utah, for crying out loud. 

https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-has-high-rates-of-child-abuse-sex-abuse-of-children

"Numbers show Utah is eighth highest among all states in child abuse. The state had 6,900 cases in 2014. Of those, 27 percent were sex abuse, the highest rate of any state."

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Per the article, he was called as a bishop in 1993, meaning he would likely have been released around 1998, or more than 20 years ago. 

The article gives no indication that he abused children while functioning as a bishop, which made me think that KUTV was playing games a bit.  So I pulled up the Information filed against Mr. Fuller (an "Information" is a list of formal charges filed against an individual).  The Information (which was later amended twice) gives more information as to what he did, and to whom.  I won't divulge that information (it's public information, but I don't want to disseminate it more than necessary), except to say that Mr. Fuller's misconduct had nothing to do with him functioning as a bishop.  The charges against him all pertain to conduct that occurred between January 2012 and October 2016, (in other words, probably 13 years or so after he was released as a bishop).  His access to the victim{s} had nothing to do with the Church, or with his previous status as a bishop.  None of the abuse took place on the Church's property or during a Church-sponsored event.

I have some concerns about this sort of news reporting.  How is his 1993-1998 calling as a bishop relevant to his 2012-2016 misconduct?  It's not.  There is no causal connection or relationship at all.  So why bring this up, except perhaps to try to foment ill will against the Church?  Imply some sort of guilt-by-association?

Not impressed with KUTV.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, if you need to read that a current bishop is doing the abusing there is the case below that happened just this year. But really, why does it matter when or where if the person that holds that mantel or held it, has those proclivities. https://kutv.com/news/local/man-arrested-in-utah-undercover-human-trafficking-investigation-is-an-lds-bishop

Therefore the need for a bishop to not have a one on one interview with children or very young youth, for that matter. And should have another leader in there. Especially if it's the routine worthiness interview. I totally get that an older youth may need to have the one on one to feel comfortable in confession of any type, I really do. 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Well, if you need to read that a current bishop is doing the abusing there is the case below that happened just this year. But really, why does it matter when or where if the person that holds that mantel or held it, has those proclivities. https://kutv.com/news/local/man-arrested-in-utah-undercover-human-trafficking-investigation-is-an-lds-bishop

Something also to remember is that rarely is a sex abuser caught and prosecuted the very first time they abuse.  It happens of course, but not often from my experience.  So we have no way of knowing how long these men have been sexual predators and then abusers.  It seems either more abuse is taking place by current and past leaders or more are being publicized.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, if you need to read that a current bishop is doing the abusing there is the case below that happened just this year.

The article (which I remember from previous discussions) states that they were looking for potential victims due to his being a bishop. So, do you know if there were any actual victims? 

 

Quote

But really, why does it matter when or where if the person that holds that mantel or held it, has those proclivities.

It matters if you are trying to make a casual connection between one-on-one interviews and abuse. 

In the previous example, the abuse took place years after the man had been released as a bishop, and his access to the victims had nothing to do with his former role as a bishop. So what does his having been a bishop have to do with anything? It doesn't. The headline might as well have read, 'Former Domino's Pizza Delivery Driver Convicted of Sexual Assault.' 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The article (which I remember from previous discussions) states that they were looking for potential victims due to his being a bishop. So, do you know if there were any actual victims? 

It states they are looking for "other" victims.  Also, they are searching for any of the "other girls" from his own statement who he'd managed as prostitutes:

Quote

He told police he had "run" other girls when he was asked if he had previous experience managing girls in prostitution....

police said Moss grabbed the hand of one of the detectives and forcibly put it on his genitals over his pants, then unzipped his pants and exposed his genitals to the two detectives. 

He was booked into the Utah County Jail for suspicion of:

- Exploiting a prostitute

- patronizing a prostitute

- sexual battery

- two counts of lewdness

 

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The article (which I remember from previous discussions) states that they were looking for potential victims due to his being a bishop. So, do you know if there were any actual victims? 

 

It matters if you are trying to make a casual connection between one-on-one interviews and abuse. 

In the previous example, the abuse took place years after the man had been released as a bishop, and his access to the victims had nothing to do with his former role as a bishop. So what does his having been a bishop have to do with anything? It doesn't. The headline might as well have read, 'Former Domino's Pizza Delivery Driver Convicted of Sexual Assault.' 

 

I don't understand you and others, it doesn't matter really if it happened to someone in their ward, what matters is this is someone that shouldn't be in that position, or hold so much power. It matters because the church has a two deep policy in every other calling. It matters because we don't know if that person could abuse, therefore it's paramount to take precautions. There are words said that can do damage as well as the physical. And if it's two deep then the single individual may think twice before speaking or doing anything inappropriate in these worthiness interviews. Again I will say that if there is an older youth that wants to speak to the bishop and confess or has the need to tell them something that is occurring in their lives, so be it. But the scheduled worthiness interviews really should be two deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't understand you and others, it doesn't matter really if it happened to someone in their ward, what matters is this is someone that shouldn't be in that position, or hold so much power. It matters because the church has a two deep policy in every other calling. It matters because we don't know if that person could abuse, therefore it's paramount to take precautions. There are words said that can do damage as well as the physical. And if it's two deep then the single individual may think twice before speaking or doing anything inappropriate in these worthiness interviews. Again I will say that if there is an older youth that wants to speak to the bishop and confess or has the need to tell them something that is occurring in their lives, so be it. But the scheduled worthiness interviews really should be two deep.

I agree and I do see things headed in that direction.  Youth can already request for another adult to be present for their regularly scheduled interviews and more of them are making that request in our ward (as well as concerned parents....and my Bishop is in full support and understands).  I do believe that if a youth wants to speak privately with any adult, they should still be able to do so, but the interviews that are instigated by the adult should be two deep, IMO (and that's for the protection of the adult leader as well).  I think we're getting there 👍

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It states they are looking for "other" victims. 

Yes, victims other than the undercover agents who caught him in their sting (who, if we're being honest, aren't really victims). Specifically, I'm interested in knowing if he victimized anyone in his ward. 

 

Quote

Also, they are searching for any of the "other girls" from his own statement who he'd managed as prostitutes:

Do you think it makes a difference whether or not the other girls were members of his congregation as opposed to, say, streetworkers he encountered back when he was a vice officer? Both are obviously bad, but only one (it seems) really would have anything to do with the bishop/interview/access issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree and I do see things headed in that direction.  Youth can already request for another adult to be present for their regularly scheduled interviews and more of them are making that request in our ward (as well as concerned parents....and my Bishop is in full support and understands).  I do believe that if a youth wants to speak privately with any adult, they should still be able to do so, but the interviews that are instigated by the adult should be two deep, IMO (and that's for the protection of the adult leader as well).  I think we're getting there 👍

You're correct about it protecting the bishop by having a two deep! Last night I went to a bridal shower in my old neighborhood and spoke with one of my old neighbors, she said her husband is so glad to not be teaching primary anymore and being put in as the GD teacher. She said he feared all time what some of these kids could say he did wrong or it blowing up to be something it was not. My husband team taught with him for a few years and the things these kids did might shock some. They were wild, even at eleven! One girl would get on the floor on her back and twirl around and then threatened to kill the others with a knife just for kicks, I wasn't there so it was probably not exactly as I was told. Otherwise she was totally fine mentally, she sang in Sacrament did everything else normal, but in class she was something else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Yes, victims other than the undercover agents who caught him in their sting (who, if we're being honest, aren't really victims). Specifically, I'm interested in knowing if he victimized anyone in his ward. 

From his own statement, there is good reason to believe there are other victims:

Quote

He told police he had "run" other girls when he was asked if he had previous experience managing girls in prostitution....

So there is very good reason to believe there are other victims.  Also his behavior (and not just assaulting the undercover officers) gives very good reason to believe his statement that there are "other victims".

10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Do you think it makes a difference whether or not the other girls were members of his congregation as opposed to, say, streetworkers he encountered back when he was a vice officer? Both are obviously bad, but only one (it seems) really would have anything to do with the bishop/interview/access issu

I'm not sure why you'd try to defend this guy.  He was caught in the act of abusing and confessed to running other girls in prostitution.  Why would it matter if these girls were members of the church or not?  He should not have been in the position of being alone with any youth (Mormon or not).  Just because some here seem to think the abuse actually needs to take place in the Bishop's office for it to be relevant and seem to be coming to the defense of men such as in this case are appalling to me.  Do you believe that girls who are walking the streets have less value than girls who are members of the church?  

I very definitely do not believe ALL Bishops are sexual predators or are grooming youth.  I've stated that repeatedly.  But that does not mean that I don't believe more safety precautions can continue to be put in place and more training needs to be done.  The church is making efforts to do this too and I applaud them and support them for doing so.

But when a man is caught in the act of abusing and confesses to running young girls as prostitutes....how on earth can you think it's ok as long as the girls weren't members of the church?

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You're correct about it protecting the bishop by having a two deep! 

I am aware that false accusations are made at times.  That's another very valid reason for having another adult present for the regular interviews (that are instigated by the adults).  I have to believe that many adult men want that protection in place as well.  I know that I do and so does my Bishop (and my Stake President now feels strongly about this as well because of all the abuse cases in the news and with more coming out all the time it seems....).  

I know men who are careful about being alone with women in the workplace now too (and vice versa).  It's just smart to protect all parties.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It matters because we don't know if that person could abuse, therefore it's paramount to take precautions.

I think the biggest issue I have in all of these bishop/youth discussions is that the fear of abuse just seems to be so wildly disproportionate to the actual level of risk. 

It's not an irrational fear, but it's something that happens so infrequently that it really seems like it gets blown out of proportion - especially since the church has already given youth the ability to have an extra adult be present during interviews. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think the biggest issue I have in all of these bishop/youth discussions is that the fear of abuse just seems to be so wildly disproportionate to the actual level of risk. 

It's not an irrational fear, but it's something that happens so infrequently that it really seems like it gets blown out of proportion - especially since the church has already given youth the ability to have an extra adult be present during interviews. 

 

I think you may be right on one hand, but on the other, do you think there may be a bigger problem than in the past with abuse? 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Do you think it makes a difference whether or not the other girls were members of his congregation as opposed to, say, streetworkers he encountered back when he was a vice officer? 

NO!!!

If he was a predator or sex abuser, he should not be serving as a Bishop.  Period.

Same with them being a school teacher or coach!

Would you want him to be alone with your teenage daughter?

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

From his own statement, there is good reason to believe there are other victims:

Other current victims? Where did he say that?

 

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:
Quote

He told police he had "run" other girls when he was asked if he had previous experience managing girls in prostitution....

So there is very good reason to believe there are other victims.  Also his behavior (and not just assaulting the undercover officers) gives very good reason to believe his statement that there are "other victims".

What behavior (aside from assaulting the undercover officers) are you referring to? His willingness to pay money for a prostitute? Because, from the article, that's all we know he has done. We don't know if his statements about running other girls are true or if they were lies to gain the trust of the sellers. 

 

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure why you'd try to defend this guy. 

I'm not trying to defend him. But I'm not assuming he's automatically guilty of everything under the sun either. 

 

Quote

He was caught in the act of abusing and confessed to running other girls in prostitution.  Why would it matter if these girls were members of the church or not?  He should not have been in the position of being alone with any youth (Mormon or not). 

Yes, bad guys who engage prostitutes should not be bishops. No argument here.

 

Quote

Just because some here seem to think the abuse actually needs to take place in the Bishop's office for it to be relevant and seem to be coming to the defense of men such as in this case are appalling to me.

Well, specifically, it was the 'former bishop' in the last case that seemed to be completely irrelevant. 

And, as appalling as you may find it to be, there is no evidence that the bishop caught up in the undercover sting abused anyone in his congregation - inside or outside of his office. That seems to be a rather salient fact that you appear to be more than happy to ignore.

 

Quote

Do you believe that girls who are walking the streets have less value than girls who are members of the church?  

Nope. That's why I said either would be "obviously bad." I'm not sure how you could you have missed that - it's literally in the quote that you were responding to. 

 

Quote

I very definitely do not believe ALL Bishops are sexual predators or are grooming youth. 

I agree. 

 

Quote

But when a man is caught in the act of abusing and confesses to running young girls as prostitutes....how on earth can you think it's ok as long as the girls weren't members of the church?

Pretty sure I never said it was "ok." 

But if we're going to have discussions about bishops potentially victimizing youth, then yeah - I think it matters if victims are actually youth. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think you may be right on one hand, but on the other, do you think there may be a bigger problem than in the past with abuse? 

Yes. And I think it is because of past experiences that the church has been modifying its policies and procedures over the last several decades. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But if we're going to have discussions about bishops potentially victimizing youth, then yeah - I think it matters if victims are actually youth. 

Who do you believe he was referring to here:

Quote

He told police he had "run" other girls when he was asked if he had previous experience managing girls in prostitution....

If that's not "potentially victimizing youth", what do you believe is?

Or are you stating that as long as it wasn't any youth from the church (which we don't know yet), it's not relevant to him serving as their current Bishop?

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And, as appalling as you may find it to be, there is no evidence that the bishop caught up in the undercover sting abused anyone in his congregation - inside or outside of his office.

But with this defense or logic you’re saying if a Bishop was raping women, it’s ok he was called to serve as a Bishop as long as he was not raping women from his congregation or in his office. 

That’s just not right or true though.  He shouldn’t be in any position of authority or power where he may use it to potentially abuse.

The guy (Bishop) in this case confessed and was actually abusing when he was caught.  Creepy!!!

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, ALarson said:
Quote

He told police he had "run" other girls when he was asked if he had previous experience managing girls in prostitution....

If that's not "potentially victimizing youth", what do you believe is?

Or are you stating that as long as it wasn't any youth from the church (which we don't know yet), it's not relevant to him serving as their current Bishop?

I'm saying (A) we don't even know if it's true in the first place or if it was merely something that was said to gain the other criminals' trust; and (B) we don't know if "girls" is in reference to minors or merely other women.

And, even if it's true, we don't know anything about when it may have taken place. Recently? A decade ago when he was in vice? No idea. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm saying (A) we don't even know if it's true in the first place or if it was merely something that was said to gain the other criminals' trust; and (B) we don't know if "girls" is in reference to minors or merely other women.

And, even if it's true, we don't know anything about when it may have taken place. Recently? A decade ago when he was in vice? No idea. 

He sexually assaulted an undercover police girl/lady. Right there and THEN (not a decade ago!).  How much more evidence do you need?

Why are you so hung up on seemingly saying, well it’s ok because whew, it wasn’t a girl from church?  

If this creep sexually abused and exposed himself and was seen and caught actually on the spot, do you honestly believe his character was such that he’d not do this to other girls given the opportunity when no one was looking?

 

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But with this defense or logic you’re saying if a Bishop was raping women, it’s ok he was called to serve as a Bishop as long as he was not raping women from his congregation or in his office. 

First, I didn't say anything about it being okay for him to be called to serve as a Bishop if he was a bad actor. 

But, to make use of your analogy, assume that there was a Bishop who was a rapist but he only victimized his spouse. 

That's obviously, horribly wrong, and that man should not be serving as a Bishop; he should be excommunicated immediately. 

But just because he abuses his wife doesn't make him a pedophile also. So there's no reason to just automatically assume that your seven year old daughter was in danger of being molested during her baptismal interview. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

He sexually assaulted an undercover police girl/lady. Right there and THEN (not a decade ago!).  How much more evidence do you need?

Why are you so hung up on seemingly saying, well it’s ok because whew, it wasn’t a girl from church?  

If this creep sexually abused and exposed himself and was seen and caught actually on the spot, do you honestly believe his character was such that he’d not do this to other girls given the opportunity when no one was looking?

 

Yeah...it's weird to see him defended on that basis.  But, I've given my opinion.

Obviously the church leaders knew it was wrong for him to be serving as Bishop and they immediately released him.  Our leaders are good men doing the very best they can, but mistakes happen and unworthy men are called to serve in leadership at times.  I'm not sure why it matters if the girls or women who were abused by this man were members or nonmembers, it was still sexual abuse and he should not have been alone with anyone where abuse could take place.  

As far as any other victims coming forward, we know that's complicated.  As a parent, many do not want to put their young daughters through all of that and may just be getting private counseling for them.  They know this man is being prosecuted and will be off the streets most likely (I can't believe they won't get a conviction).

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

He sexually assaulted an undercover police girl/lady. Right there and THEN (not a decade ago!).  How much more evidence do you need?

You are conflating two separate things. Putting a woman's hand on your physical person is not evidence that you used to be a pimp. 

 

Quote

Why are you so hung up on seemingly saying, well it’s ok because whew, it wasn’t a girl from church?  

Again, I never said that any sort of illegal or immoral conduct was "ok."

 

Quote

If this creep sexually abused and exposed himself and was seen and caught actually on the spot, do you honestly believe his character was such that he’d not do this to other girls given the opportunity when no one was looking?

You are assuming that he exposed himself because he has some sort of predilection for that kind of behavior. Because, in addition to being a pimp and a sex fiend, he also just happens to be an exhibitionist. 

Or, based on his years in vice, he knows that he will be able to prove he isn't a cop if he openly engages in a crime. Since he was looking to pay for sex he demonstrated that by engaging in a sex crime. If he was looking to buy drugs, he would have snorted a line. 

The only thing we know about his character is that it is bad. 

But once you start down the line of, well if he did X don't you think he might also do Y, then the honest answer is, at least from my perspective: it depends. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You are conflating two separate things. Putting a woman's hand on your physical person is not evidence that you used to be a pimp.

You are assuming that he exposed himself because he has some sort of predilection for that kind of behavior. Because, in addition to being a pimp and a sex fiend, he also just happens to be an exhibitionist.

He didn’t just expose himself, he grabbed the woman and forced her to touch his genitals.  Why are you continuing to defend this creep?  

He shouldn’t have been serving as a Bishop. Period.  Was it done on purpose?  Of course not!!!  He was released and is now where hopefully he will be punished and not be able to abuse.

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yeah...it's weird to see him defended on that basis.  But, I've given my opinion.

As far as any other victims coming forward, we know that's complicated.  As a parent, many do not want to put their young daughters through all of that and may just be getting private counseling for them.  They know this man is being prosecuted and will be off the streets most likely (I can't believe they won't get a conviction).

Oh, I agree and know first hand that you are 100% right about what a difficult decision it is at times to speak out as a victim.  Especially for a teenager or young girl (or boy).  Much of the time, the victim feels a lot of shame and embarrassment too.

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...