High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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."

This could be because we have low rates of neglect.  This inflates the percentage of sex abuse cases.

Very simple...

You have 25 sex abuse cases and 75 neglect cases.  25/100 gives a rate of rate of sex abuse cases is 25 %

You have 25 sex abuse cases and 25 neglect cases. 25/50 gives a rate of 50%.

The number of sex abuse cases haven't changed.

In reality it is more complicated as there are more than just sex abuse and neglect cases, but iirc neglect is usually the largest child abuse category.

----

I didn't see where they say how they determined the reporting rate, they just quote it as statement of facts.  I am more interested in how the rates were determined, not what the rates are.

Can you quote how they determined this rate, did they perform their own study or depend on older ones?  Some of the older ones are problematic, but just get repeated as if proven fact.  Also depending on adults' memories of the past to determine rates does not take into account the changing social influences, such as the current openness about child abuse and the more social dominant view of believing the child rather than dismissing it as fantasy or maliciousness.

Utah may have some significant differences that affect reporting rates, such as the role religious leaders play in kids' lives as well as younger parents, less single parents, and larger families.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours 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. 

If the argument is about risk in interviews, the evidence should imo be about what happens in interviews, not elsewhere.  This is not a value judgment on the behaviour elsewhere, but a discussion on relevancy.

If I am asking for evidence that a baby's toy is a choking hazard, showing me evidence it easily catches fire tells me it is a crap toy, but tells me nothing about whether or not it is a choking hazard.  And pointing that out does not mean .I don't care if it is a fire hazard.

No one here is defending an immoral man, it is about the interview process...which has safeguards in place to prevent misuse by immoral individuals.  The question is if those currently in place are enough (thus older incidents when safeguards were not in place are not useful) or if more would help or if the process is inherently flawed and therefore no safeguard is enough.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Calm

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the argument is about risk in interviews, the evidence should imo be about what happens in interviews, not elsewhere. 

I’m not making that argument (maybe some here are?).  I don’t think anyone has claimed the abuse took place in this guy’s Bishop’s office or during an interview.  He clearly should not have been in a position of power that may have given him opportunity to take advantage of women or youth.  That’s my concern.  But I’ve stated men make mistakes of judgement (good men who called him to the position) and it’s good he’s been removed and the error corrected.  Hopefully no one in his congregation was abused or harmed by him.  He should not have been serving as Bishop though, imo, if his character was such that he was doing what he was caught doing.

Edited August 31, 2019 by JulieM

[Calm]

Quote

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.

I am assuming this is just poorly written because the suggestion that you would actually consider anyone here possibly thinking it is okay for a rapist to be called as a bishop as long as he rapes outside of church is rather horrendous.

If I read anything that I even thought hinted at that, I would be assuming I read it wrong.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

He should not have been serving as Bishop though, imo, if his character was such that he was doing what he was caught doing.

There is no indication as far as I can remember that anyone would know of his poor character as he resigned before his affair became a public matter.  Iirc, there was no investigation into other behaviour at his police job.  I don't remember if there was anything notable from other jobs save perhaps he changed them frequently iirc.

Should the Church insist on having access to a person's personnel file before calling them to sensitive positions?

If not or if there is nothing on record or accessible to church leadership, how do you believe we should be able to exclude someone like him (bad character, but unknown publicly at the time of calling) from serving if public appearances show him to be acceptable.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Calm

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am assuming this is just poorly written because the suggestion that you would actually consider anyone here possibly thinking it is okay for a rapist to be called as a bishop as long as he rapes outside of church is rather horrendous.

If I read anything that I even thought hinted at that, I would be assuming I read it wrong.

I was making a comparison to some of the logic or defense being used in some posts here (from what I saw).

This was stated:

“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.”

 

And:

 

“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?”

”. Specifically, I'm interested in knowing if he victimized anyone in his ward.“

 

And I believe my comparison was accurate. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by JulieM

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I was making a comparison to some of the logic or defense being used in some posts here (using the same logic from what I saw.)

It was a very offensive accusation though.  If you thought the logic went that way (and from what I read it didn't), then there are more civil ways of pointing out faulty logic....something like 'I in no way believe you think this way, but the logic you are using implies the only concern is if he rapes at church or a member of his congregation and no doubt that is not what you want to imply' 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Calm

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is no indication as far as I can remember that anyone would know of his poor character as he resigned before his affair became a public matter.  Iirc, there was no investigation into other behaviour at his police job.  I don't remember if there was anything notable from other jobs save perhaps he changed them frequently iirc.

Should the Church insist on having access to a person's personnel file before calling them to sensitive positions?

If not or if there is nothing on record or accessible to church leadership, how do you believe we should be able to exclude someone like him (bad character, but unknown publicly at the time of calling) from serving if public appearances show him to be acceptable.

You’re misunderstanding.  I actually think we agree here.  I’ve stated good men called him and mistakes are made.  He should not have been a Bishop though, that’s for sure.  I’m glad it was corrected and church leaders removed him.

But there should not have been any allowances given to him because he only abused streetwalkers and as far as we know, no members of the church.  

Edited August 31, 2019 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is no indication as far as I can remember that anyone would know of his poor character as he resigned before his affair became a public matter.

If not, how do you believe we should be able to exclude someone like him (bad character, but unknown at the time of calling) from serving if public appearances show him to be acceptable.

Over and over the leaders that call bishops or ? must not get the discernment that Pres. McKay says they should. 

President David O. McKay promised every man who uses the priesthood in righteousness that he “will find his life sweetened, his discernment sharpened to decide quickly between right and wrong, his feelings tender and compassionate, yet his spirit strong and valiant in defense of right; he will find the priesthood a never failing source of happiness—a well of living water springing up unto eternal life” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay[2003], 116).

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was a very offensive accusation though.

It was a comparison (example of his logic).  I find it offensive to infer that if he only abused street girls or women it wasn’t as bad as if he’d abused in his Bishop’s office or church members.  That’s why I posted the comparison. 

And I stand by it.  Both are equally as offensive, imo.

Edited August 31, 2019 by JulieM

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I find it offensive to infer that if he only abused street girls or women it wasn’t as bad as if he’d abused in his Bishop’s office or church members.

You are the one inferring it though.  It was not actually implied by any of the arguments that I saw being made.  The point being made was not a value judgment (good or bad), but relevancy (does it relate to the argument).  What a bishop can do outside an interview does not automatically show what he can do in an interview (for an absurd analogy, a bishop can go swimming outside an interview in his office, but it is physically impossible to swim in his office, so if I was asking if swimming was possible in interviews, telling me a bishop went swimming at a local pool is irrelevant).

Edited August 31, 2019 by Calm

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are the one inferring it though.

That’s not true.  Read the quotes above (I edited my post).  I believe my comparison was accurate or similar.  You can disagree, but I was only making a point I felt needed to be made.  A streetwalker being abused is just as serious as a church member being abused.  Sexual assault is abuse whether it’s against a member or nonmember.

Edited August 31, 2019 by JulieM

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Read the quotes above (I edited my post).  

I did.  I think you are wrong in inferring there was any suggestion an act of abuse was worse if done in his office/an interview.  They were instead pointing out relevancy to the discussion about interviews.

The first was a comment about using what he did at the sting as evidence for abuse of his congregation.  The second was pointing out in a discussion about what a bishop does in his calling it is relevant whether those he abused were of his congregation or outside of his congregation.  Neither implied that meant the abuse wasn't as bad as it would have been if it was a church member.

A principal of a elementary school trolls the street and gets caught abusing a child prostitute by police.  Should he get fired for immorality?  Certainly.  Should everyone assume he abused kids at his school?  No.  Why not as what he did was horrendous?  Because there is no evidence he did the same thing at his school.  Would it be worse if he abused kids at his school rather than a child prostitute?  Absolutely not, just as evil.  Still not evidence he abused kids at his school....but it would be smart for police to check out the possibility.

All that was being done was pointing out abuse outside of church is not evidence of abuse inside the church.  There was nothing about one being worse than the other.  You are reading that into what was said.  If you still disagree, please point out the exact words that are addressing how bad his behaviour was, not where it took place.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Calm

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I did.  I think you are wrong in inferring there was any suggestion an act of abuse was worse if done in his office/an interview. 

Then why did he even ask the question?

We will just have to disagree here, Calm.  I very clearly saw that a difference was being made between a streetwalker being abused and a member being abused in the Bishop’s office (as if one would be more serious for a Bishop to do).  My opinion is they’re equally serious.  

Edited August 31, 2019 by JulieM

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then why did he even ask the question?

We will just have to disagree here, Calm.  I very clearly saw that a difference was being made between a streetwalker being abused and a member being abused in the Bishop’s office (as if one would be more serious for a Bishop to do).  My opinion is they’re equally serious.  

Show the words that addressed the seriousness rather than relevancy than.  I edited my above post with an analogy that might help explain the problem.

I am making a big deal of it because it is rather important to accuse someone of thinking one kind of rape isn't as bad as another or rapping one person isn't as bad as raping another because of past history or whatever.  If the accusation is based on misreading someone's comment, I think it needs to be pointed out they don't think that way, it is a faulty assumption.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then why did he even ask the question?

 

There is little The Church can do to monitor and control the actions of its members outside its property or employment to prevent criminal/immoral behaviour besides teaching correct principles, offering guidelines, and hoping they will be followed.  They can't inspect homes, install security cams in neighbourhoods, require body cams for their members at work so they can 'follow' them around.

The Church can take action to modify the environment or change requirements on its properties as well as for its employees/volunteers. (Windows in offices, two deep, no meetings after a certain time, etc)

Thus the question of whether something happened in relation to his calling or occurred elsewhere has makes sense/has merit.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Calm

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then why did he even ask the question?

We will just have to disagree here, Calm.  I very clearly saw that a difference was being made between a streetwalker being abused and a member being abused in the Bishop’s office (as if one would be more serious for a Bishop to do).  My opinion is they’re equally serious.  

I don't see anyone here saying one is more serious. I've only seen people questioning relevancy as I did. Nearly this whole thread has been about the relevancy.

 

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't see anyone here saying one is more serious.

It was stated that the woman who was assulted wasn’t even really a victim (“who, if we're being honest, aren't really victims”)

And, this was then asked:

”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?”

I’d imagine even if you’re a street worker or a woman who is an undercover officer, what this guy did to her felt like sexual abuse (and it was.)

If I misunderstood they’re meaning, then they can clarify or correct how they stated things and asked the questions.  I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and understand if they misspoke.

Edited August 31, 2019 by JulieM

[Calm]

23 hours ago, JulieM said:

It was stated that the woman who was assulted wasn’t even a “real victim”.

Was the poster aware she was groped (Add-on:  I was going from memory myself and messed it up, she wasn't groped, I am not sure what it would be called, but I view it as assault)?  Maybe they(add-on:  was pretty sure it was Amulek you were referring to, went back and checked)  just assumed they caught him in the sting before he assaulted one of the women.  Did it occur to you to ask before assuming he thought police women who were groped in the middle of a sting weren't victims?

Amulek, did you read the link Tacenda posted?  Do you think if police officers encounter the below it is just part of their job or are they actual victims of assault/sexual battery?

Quote

During the part of the conversation about avoiding police, police said Moss grabbed the hand of one of the detectives and forcibly put ------- over his pants, then unzipped his pants and exposed ------- to the two detectives. 

Edited for censor and graphicness.  Wanted to be sure Amulek knew exactly what was referred to in case he had missed it before.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Calm

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was the person aware she was groped?  Maybe they just assumed they caught him in the sting before he assaulted one of the women. 

Here is what he did (from the linked article):

 “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.”

And this is what Amulek stated about it:

“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.”

I honestly don’t see a different way to interpret what was stated and then asked again.

(I’ve got to get to bed.  I’ve said I’ll give him a chance to explain and give him the benefit of the doubt if he misspoke. But from what was posted I still have the same impression).

Edited August 31, 2019 by JulieM

[Calm]

22 hours ago, JulieM said:

Here is what he did (from the linked article):

 “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.”

Yes, I quoted it myself.

You have a valid point with this instance.  I wish you had specified this at the beginning and asked for clarification rather than focused on the other comments that had to do with relevancy, though .I can understand why this comment taints his other comments.

 I had forgotten myself the bishop had actually assaulted one of the detectives on the sting and even when .i did remember, .I remembered it as groping.  I had remember his affair because I had done research on his previous work record and found some stuff on that.  It is not uncommon to skip reading links thinking one knows enough, I therefore make it a habit if some comment sounds strange in the context of the article to doublecheck if they had read that part.

Amulek is a longterm poster and nothing suggests he thinks assault or rape is somehow less if done to a nonmember than a member.  I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt and a chance to clear up misunderstandings before the accusation of him thinking rape doesn't matter in certain cases gets thrown around.

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, I quoted it myself.

You have a valid point with this instance.  I wish you had specified this at the beginning and asked for clarification rather than focused on the other comments that had to do with relevancy, though .I can understand why this comment taints his other comments.

 I had forgotten myself the bishop had actually assaulted on of the detectives on the sting and even when .i did remember, .I remembered it as groping.  I had remember his affair because I had done research on his previous work record and found some stuff on that.  It is not uncommon to skip reading links thinking one knows enough, I therefore make it a habit if some comment sounds strange in the context of the article to doublecheck if they had read that part.

Amulek is a longterm poster and nothing suggests he thinks assault or rape is somehow less if done to a nonmember than a member.  I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt and a chance to clear up misunderstandings before the accusation of him thinking rape doesn't matter in certain cases gets thrown around.

 

I bet he didn't mean it like it came out. Hope not anyway.

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Amulek is a longterm poster and nothing suggests he thinks assault or rape is somehow less if done to a nonmember than a member.

I saw that Julie was just using an extreme analogy to try to get Amulek to see how his posts and expressions regarding this specific case were coming across ("with this logic....").  I did not see her as meaning he would actually sanction rape (to a nonmember or a member).

Julie is not the only one here who saw his original posts as surprising.  He appears to be saying that if the girl or woman was not a streetworker (prostitute) from this man's vice days or an undercover cop (woman), then it's either actually not even sexual assault or not the same or as serious as if it was abuse of a ward member.  But I'm with Julie and you in that he deserves the benefit of the doubt to explain or clarify.

Edited August 31, 2019 by ALarson

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Over and over the leaders that call bishops or ? must not get the discernment that Pres. McKay says they should. 

President David O. McKay promised every man who uses the priesthood in righteousness that he “will find his life sweetened, his discernment sharpened to decide quickly between right and wrong, his feelings tender and compassionate, yet his spirit strong and valiant in defense of right; he will find the priesthood a never failing source of happiness—a well of living water springing up unto eternal life” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay[2003], 116).

You keep that axe pretty sharp, but unfortunately it is misdirected. What context is Pres. McKay talking? Is he talking about the individual's life or the life of a priesthood leader? Please go back and read it again. It has nothing to do with being a leader and having the power of discernment in making callings.

 

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Amulek, did you read the link Tacenda posted?  Do you think if police officers encounter the below it is just part of their job or are they actual victims of assault/sexual battery?

I was planning on leaving this thread alone. I got to typing faster than I was thinking with a few of my posts there and kind of stepped in it with the way they came across. 

I'm not one to go back and edit my posts to change them in any material way, so if I blew it - I own it. With that being said, here is some additional clarification regarding the two items you've brought up:

1. Police: This is one where I let my...more than healthy skepticism or law enforcement slip out. Was the officer sexually assaulted according to the law? Yes, obviously so. But, if I'm being honest, I generally have a hard time thinking of the undercover officers who run these entrapment sting operations as being victims in the fullest sense. Because they are intentionally putting themselves into a situation where this precise kind of activity (i.e., committing a crime to prove authenticity) is expected to occur. So, for example, if a man were to grope a co-worker or a random woman on the street (or any number of other situations you can think of), then yeah, she is obviously a victim. But what if, instead, an undercover female agent approaches a man, asks if he's looking for a good time, and they agree to go up to her apartment to engage in a sex act for a fixed amount of money - only, when they get up to the apartment, he gropes the woman (who he believe has already consented to having sex with him, albeit for money) prior to actually paying her. After the transaction is complete, the cops bust in and arrest the guy both for solicitation and (for having groped the agent) sexual assault. Was the agent a victim? Yeah, I suppose so, but in my mind I tend to think of it as being a bit different because the consent was really only missing because she turned out to be a cop; had she been an actual sex worker it would have just been part of what was expected to occur. 
2. Streetwalkers: So, speaking of streetwalkers, the point I was trying to make with that was with respect to relevance: first in terms of time and second in terms of victimology. So first, if the girls he had allegedly been involved with happened to all be "streetwalkers he [had] encountered back when he was a vice officer" then that is something that would have happened likely over a decade ago (he was employed in vice until 2012, so it could have been slightly sooner but probably not by much). If that much time has passed since he had been involved, it seems to me that it isn't exactly the sort of thing that he's been perpetually engaged in. And second, if he had an identifiable victim pool which was expressly composed of a certain group, then that can inform our understanding of how likely / unlikely it may be for some other group to be at risk. So, if he only ever targeted existing sex workers for further exploitation (p.s., this is totally common), then he's probably not going to be using temple recommend interviews as a recruitment tool to find new girls. 

I don't have time to write more, but hopefully that helps give you a little better idea as to what I intended. Sorry if I caused any offence - that wasn't my intent.

Oh, and for the record, rape is totally wrong. Period.