Jump to content
bluebell

High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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.

Thanks for making some clarifications, Amulek....it can be difficult at times to communicate on here :) 

Just a couple of thoughts in response...

I didn't see anyone claiming this Bishop was abusing during interviews or had abused anyone he'd interviewed as a part of his calling.  I saw the point being made was that he was abusing women (and possibly teens if he was running them as prostitutes as he claimed) while he was serving as a Bishop.  He was actually caught abusing at least one woman and has now been arrested.  That wasn't "over a decade ago" or prior to him serving as Bishop, so that's the concern here with him having access to other youth (or women).  No one is stating he actually did take advantage of that and so far there is no evidence he did (that we know of...).  

46 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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

I'm sure all here know that.  Julie's analogy was extreme to make a point regarding following the logic you at least appeared to be using here (but I'll let her speak for herself if she returns to this thread).

I want to add that this is an emotional topic and a complicated one.  Many times I avoid threads that discuss sex abuse (especially if children are involved).  So, it's easy to misunderstand or get worked up when discussing abuse, IMO.   If I posted anything that was offensive to you, I apologize.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

A documentary has been put on Amazon Prime Video called "No Crime in Sin", the story about Kristy and Kathy Johnson's father's abuse. They were abused from 1969 t0 1986. Their dad had been reported several times to local church authorities. Then in 1986 the daughters went to the police and filed a report. Their dad was never questioned, arrested or prosecuted. The documentary shows the sisters and their brother questioning their father and he admits to all of it. He confessed to the stake president when he was older and then left his family, divorced his wife and then moved to Utah and remarried and started a new life. The church didn't help their mother and these girls at all according to the documentary. In 1986 Melvin Kay Johnson was ex'd and in 1987 he was rebaptized with an annotation mark on his records. But in 2007 the annotation was removed. The Johnson's mother Linda, sent a letter to the church in protest but never received a response. 

During the 2016 interview with their father, two young neighbor children walk in his house to fill up ice trays. The neighbors didn't know of his past molestations apparently. 

I am typing as I'm watching, but I won't keep typing. If someone wants to watch they can see how the abused gets the shaft. :(

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Amulek said:

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 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. 

 

I appreciate you taking the time and risk of being misunderstood to post.

The incident is a difficult topic to approach because of the sting involvement; we weren't given enough details to know how aggressive he was independently as opposed to how much they opened the door to encourage him to commit a crime (I have mixed feelings about stings if the LEO is more than a passive participant as in how likely would the crime have happened without the sting).  Given the reaction of the detective of locking herself in the bathroom rather than just waiting for help to arrive, it does sound like he was not encouraged to become so physical himself, as in consent wasn't given, so I would see her as a victim of a physical assault even if they were discussing engaging in prostitution as business partners (him being their 'manager').  Otoh, if he did ask to 'sample the wares' before committing to the arrangement and there was consent, then the detective becomes in my view a victim more in the sense that those who consent to prostitution or pornography are victims of a culture that often sees such as victimless crimes or even empowerment of women and classes it all as 'entertainment' and thereby seems to foster a significant part of its population to view others as 'less than', there simply as objects for their degenerate pleasure.  In that sense, the man may be partly a victim as well if he had become desensitized to the degradation such sexual encounters involve through his earlier work as a vice detective. 

Whatever happened, I hope the detectives and those working with them receive a lot of emotional support including therapy because such work even when it goes right and no one is physically harmed, it has to have a huge mental and emotional toll on one's sense of well-being, view of the world, and personal self-esteem.

Thanks again for responding.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

This article provides the most info I have seen anywhere on what happened during the sting, still can't figure out why a hug was the battery being pled to though...

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-lds-bishop-from-lehi-files-to-withdraw-guilty-plea/article_2a67d064-ff21-5d3d-8895-84b9f6c2213c.html

Quote

In June, he later accepted a plea deal and pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony of exploiting a prostitute and a class A misdemeanor of sexual battery.

But two weeks ago, Moss submitted a motion to withdraw the plea to sexual battery and claimed he didn’t understand the factual basis of the charge.

“He was improperly induced the ‘plea bargaining pressure’ of the moment,” the motion states.

At the arraignment, the defense attorney argued because Moss did not inappropriately touch the women before his arrest, his actions did not meet the definition of “sexual battery.”

Prosecutors explained that Moss gave a hug to the officer during the undercover operation, and Moss decided to plead no contest to the misdemeanor charge.

“Immediately after the hearing, defendant realized that he had pleaded guilty to a crime he did not commit,” the motion states. “Until he was at the podium, he did not understand the state’s position that a hug was a factual basis for a charge of sexual battery. His plea, therefore, was not done knowingly.”...

“Eventually, the defendant focused on engaging in sexual acts, for which he again stated he was willing to pay,” charges reported.

He exposed himself to both women and tried to have the undercover officer touch him inappropriately to prove she was not with the police, charges state.

This has additional info as well for those interested:

https://www.kuer.org/post/police-seeking-tips-former-lds-bishop-police-officer-arrested-human-trafficking-sting#stream/0

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, ALarson said:

I saw the point being made was that he was abusing women (and possibly teens if he was running them as prostitutes as he claimed) while he was serving as a Bishop. 

Just to be accurate, not trying to diminish what he did because yech, yech, yech....

I am not seeing anything in the reports that suggests this unless you mean the abuse took place in this one case where it is claimed he assaulted one woman (not women).  Description implies he claimed he had done it in the past ("had ran" girls, not "was running"), not at that time, though he was there most likely in an attempt to become their 'manager' (he was focused more on that than paying for sex apparently). No mention of age specifically though girls implies teens...the problem to be sure is "girls" is often used for any age woman when speaking of her in a demeaning sense as well as at times neutral, though it doesn't exclude he was willing now or if he actually ran a ring in the past and wasn't just claiming it (he was not prosecuted for such, so it doesn't sound like any evidence besides his claim, which I bet he later stated he was just trying to 'pad his resume').

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to be accurate, not trying to diminish what he did because yech, yech, yech....

I am not seeing anything in the reports that suggests this unless you mean the abuse took place in this one case where it is claimed he assaulted one woman (not women).  

Here's what we know took place while he was actually serving as the Bishop:

Quote

 

During the undercover operation, detectives established contact with a man who uses the name "Pilot" on Feb. 14. They identified that person as Moss, according to a press release. Moss characterized himself to undercover detectives not as a pimp but as someone who could help them avoid being caught by law enforcement. He told police he had "run" other girls when he was asked if he had previous experience managing girls in prostitution.

Detectives sent photos to Moss -- presumably of girls -- and then prices were discussed and an arrangement to meet was made. During the meeting, Moss showed them money and said, "I am not opposed to paying."

During the part of the conversation about avoiding police, 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. Moss was released that day while further evidence was collected before his arrest on Tuesday in Lehi. He was booked into the Utah County Jail for suspicion of:

Exploiting a prostitute

patronizing a prostitute

sexual battery

two counts of lewdness

 

So there's absolutely no question he should not have been in a position where he was alone with women or youth (and there was most definitely reason for concern).  Kudos to the church leaders for immediately releasing him and let's pray the abuse was of just this one woman (that was serious enough).

(As far as him running girls as prostitutes....I used the word "possibly" regarding that even though this actually came from his own statement...).  

I was addressing an earlier post where someone stated something along the lines of we don't know how much he was involved with prostitutes or abuse of women that took place decades ago (before he was Bishop).  That's all speculation, IMO.  What we do know is what he did while he was serving as Bishop (the abuse described above).   

Calm, I'll let you have the last word if you choose to reply as I've said all I want regarding what I believe and how I feel about this one specific case....I'm moving on if I'm involved at all on this thread in the future.... :) 

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/30/2019 at 9:53 PM, 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.

Thanks, Calm.  I understand the confusion and misunderstanding.  No worries!

Also, thanks Amulek and ALarson for you additional comments too 👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, ALarson said:

I didn't see anyone claiming this Bishop was abusing during interviews or had abused anyone he'd interviewed as a part of his calling.  I saw the point being made was that he was abusing women (and possibly teens if he was running them as prostitutes as he claimed) while he was serving as a Bishop. 

Yes, that is the allegation.  But the issue here, I think, is that critics and opponents of the Church are using this guy as a basis for criticizing the Church.

By way of analogy, let's look at the story of Daniel Holtzclaw:

Quote

Daniel Ken Holtzclaw (born December 10, 1986) is a former Oklahoma City Police Department patrol officer who was convicted in December 2015 of multiple counts of rape, sexual battery, forcible oral sodomy, and other charges.

Holtzclaw was convicted of eighteen counts involving eight different women. According to the police investigators, Holtzclaw abused his position as an officer by running background checks to find information that could be used to coerce victims into sex.
...
Holtzclaw pleaded not guilty to all charges. On December 10, 2015, an all-white jury convicted him on 18 of 36 charges, and on January 21, 2016, he was sentenced to 263 years in prison.
...
Holtzclaw was accused of sexually assaulting multiple African American women over the period between December 2013 and June 2014, targeting those from a poorer, majority black portion of the city. According to the police investigators, Holtzclaw ran background checks on women with outstanding warrants or other criminal records, and methodically targeted those victims.

Pretty disgusting stuff, right?  If these charges are valid (and since he was convicted via due process in a court of law by a jury of his peers, I think that's a reasonable assumption) then he certainly deserves punishment and condemnation.

However, would it be fair or reasonable to use Holtzclaw's misconduct to indict and vilify the entirety of the Oklahoma City Police Department?  Perhaps even the entire concept of law enforcement?  

I think it's safe to surmise that the OCPD had substantial written policies and procedures in place, as well as training of police officers, pertaining to guidelines on officer conduct, use of police resources, etc.  Holtzclaw grossly violated these policies and procedures, and state statutes, in behaving the way he did.  Worse, he betrayed the trust and confidence given to him when he took an oath, put on the uniform, and agreed to "protect and serve."  He betrayed the OCPD.  He betrayed the city of Oklahoma City and its citizens.

That being the case, would it make any sense for people to stand up, point at Holtzclaw's misconduct, and then say "And this is why we need to abolish the Oklahoma City Police Department!  Look at what he did!  The whole department is corrupt and should be disbanded."

Reasonable-minded persons might think these histrionics to be a bit . . . odd.  Overwrought.  Driven by high emotion and anger, not by reason or evidence.  When Holtzclaw committed the above-described wrongs, he not only abused his victims, he also betrayed the organization to which he belonged, and the principles on which that organization is based.

So it is, I think, with the matter of David Moss, the man who was serving as a bishop in Lehi while also, per the charges against him, he engaged in gross and illegal conduct.  If he is found guilty, he will not only have abused his victims, he will have betrayed his family, his community, and his church, and the principles on which his family, community and church are based.

That being the case, it would be sort of repellant to see someone come along and use his misconduct to condemn and vilify his family.  Or his community.  Or his church.  Or the principles on which these things are based.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, that is the allegation.  But the issue here, I think, is that critics and opponents of the Church are using this guy as a basis for criticizing the Church.

I'm responding as to not appear to ignore your comment, smac.....but I've already posted how I feel about this case.  I haven't seen the criticism you describe (in the discussion on this thread which is what I was engaged in).  I believe it was brought up on this thread because some had stated that abuse that happened decades ago (or abuse decades after a Bishop served) may not be as relevant compared to a Bishop who is abusing while he is currently serving as a Bishop.   This man very definitely was involved in behavior and abuse while actually serving in that calling (if you believe his own statements and those of from eyewitnesses and officers involved).  That was the point my comments were focused on (as well as the surrounding conversation that I saw).  He was released immediately, of course....and the leaders handled it well, IMO.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm responding as to not appear to ignore your comment, smac.....but I've already posted how I feel about this case.  I haven't seen the criticism you describe (in the discussion on this thread which is what I was engaged in). 

It's pretty easy to find.  Reddit.  Exmormon.org.  MormonDiscussions.  And so on.

Quote

I believe it was brought up on this thread because some had stated that abuse that happened decades ago (or abuse decades after a Bishop served) may not be as relevant compared to a Bishop who is abusing while he is currently serving as a Bishop.

I don't think anyone has suggested that bishops are impervious to doing wrong things.  Rather, the generalized sentiment (amongst the people who want to exploit Moss' and/or Murdock's misconduct) seems to be that bishops (or local Church leaders overall, including high councillors like Murdock) are like Moss and Murdock.  They are collectively bad, they are inchoate predators and child molesters, that none of them can or should be trusted.  This is the sentiment that Sam Young and his supporters are pushing.  This is the sentiment underlying the demands for cessation of all bishop interviews.  This is the sentiment being expressed as a means of indicting and vilifying the Church by pointing to instances of gross misconduct (like those alleged against Moss and Murdock).

Quote

This man very definitely was involved in behavior and abuse while actually serving in that calling (if you believe his own statements and those of from eyewitnesses and officers involved).

First, I don't think we can say this man was "involved," let alone "definitely," let alone "very definitely."  All we have are criminal charges.

Second, even if we assume and anticipate the guilt of Mr. Moss, my point remains: Holtzclaw was also "actually serving" in a particular capacity in an organization (an officer with the Oklahoma City Police Department).  However, his misconduct should not be used to indict the OCPD, or law enforcement generally.  His misconduct was a betrayal of the organization to which he belonged.  It would therefore be rather perverse to demonize that organization because one of its constituent members betrayed it and its foundational principles.

Third, by analogy, I think it is likewise perverse for critics and opponents of the Church to demonize the Church because one of its constituent members betrayed it and its foundational principles.

Quote

That was the point my comments were focused on (as well as the surrounding conversation that I saw).  He was released immediately, of course....and the leaders handled it well, IMO.

Okay.  I was not really responding to you.  I was responding generally to, well, critics and opponents of the Church who are doing what I describe above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's pretty easy to find.  Reddit.  Exmormon.org.  MormonDiscussions.  And so on.

Ok.  I'm sure if one goes searching, it's there.  If you want to bring it to this thread and discuss it, I'm not interested in that aspect of it.  As I've already stated, I was pretty much done and had expressed my views and beliefs regarding this specific case.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, that is the allegation.  But the issue here, I think, is that critics and opponents of the Church are using this guy as a basis for criticizing the Church.

By way of analogy, let's look at the story of Daniel Holtzclaw:

Pretty disgusting stuff, right?  If these charges are valid (and since he was convicted via due process in a court of law by a jury of his peers, I think that's a reasonable assumption) then he certainly deserves punishment and condemnation.

However, would it be fair or reasonable to use Holtzclaw's misconduct to indict and vilify the entirety of the Oklahoma City Police Department?  Perhaps even the entire concept of law enforcement?  

I think it's safe to surmise that the OCPD had substantial written policies and procedures in place, as well as training of police officers, pertaining to guidelines on officer conduct, use of police resources, etc.  Holtzclaw grossly violated these policies and procedures, and state statutes, in behaving the way he did.  Worse, he betrayed the trust and confidence given to him when he took an oath, put on the uniform, and agreed to "protect and serve."  He betrayed the OCPD.  He betrayed the city of Oklahoma City and its citizens.

That being the case, would it make any sense for people to stand up, point at Holtzclaw's misconduct, and then say "And this is why we need to abolish the Oklahoma City Police Department!  Look at what he did!  The whole department is corrupt and should be disbanded."

Reasonable-minded persons might think these histrionics to be a bit . . . odd.  Overwrought.  Driven by high emotion and anger, not by reason or evidence.  When Holtzclaw committed the above-described wrongs, he not only abused his victims, he also betrayed the organization to which he belonged, and the principles on which that organization is based.

So it is, I think, with the matter of David Moss, the man who was serving as a bishop in Lehi while also, per the charges against him, he engaged in gross and illegal conduct.  If he is found guilty, he will not only have abused his victims, he will have betrayed his family, his community, and his church, and the principles on which his family, community and church are based.

That being the case, it would be sort of repellant to see someone come along and use his misconduct to condemn and vilify his family.  Or his community.  Or his church.  Or the principles on which these things are based.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your premise isn't cutting it. Look at it as that the police department needing to change requirements or have things in place to prevent this from happening. 

Share this post


Link to post

These reports just keep happening. Again, no one on one interviews with young children, for prevention of the "just in case"!! It appears this guy was a bishop during the time frame of the abuses.

https://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/2019/09/portland-community-college-drivers-ed-teacher-accused-of-sexually-abusing-20-students.html?fbclid=IwAR22iThWQN42o6p3Zo4-vSe1h1J4NwDh01M5wsy8Z_vTan5gGIksRVYVQks

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

These reports just keep happening. Again, no one on one interviews with young children, for prevention of the "just in case"!! It appears this guy was a bishop during the time frame of the abuses.

https://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/2019/09/portland-community-college-drivers-ed-teacher-accused-of-sexually-abusing-20-students.html?fbclid=IwAR22iThWQN42o6p3Zo4-vSe1h1J4NwDh01M5wsy8Z_vTan5gGIksRVYVQks

From the article:

Quote

A Hillsboro man who worked as a long-time driving instructor at Portland Community College was arrested Thursday after authorities say he’s suspected of sexually abusing at least 20 girls or women who took his course.
...
Bur**** was also a bishop of the Hillsboro Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no indication at this point that Bur**** abused anyone in relation to his church duties, but some of his driving students may have been referred to his course through his connection to the church, van Kleef said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/1/2019 at 1:28 PM, Tacenda said:

Your premise isn't cutting it. Look at it as that the police department needing to change requirements or have things in place to prevent this from happening. 

"To prevent this from happening?"  What does that mean?  Surely the OCPD had policies already in place prohibiting officers from coercing citizens into performing unwanted sexual acts?  

Oklahoma had laws on the books criminalizing this behavior, right?  After all, he was convicted of crimes, and all crimes are statutory, so he must have been charged and convicted based on state laws that predated his misconduct.  Do you agree?

I really don't understand wha tyou are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

These reports just keep happening. Again, no one on one interviews with young children, for prevention of the "just in case"!! It appears this guy was a bishop during the time frame of the abuses.

https://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/2019/09/portland-community-college-drivers-ed-teacher-accused-of-sexually-abusing-20-students.html?fbclid=IwAR22iThWQN42o6p3Zo4-vSe1h1J4NwDh01M5wsy8Z_vTan5gGIksRVYVQks

Ugh....

It states:

Quote

Detectives say they’ve been investigating allegations against 48-year-old Paul Douglas Bur****, of Hillsboro, since 2018. So far, detectives have identified 20 alleged victims, all girls or young women, who say Bur**** sexually abused them.

And:

Quote

The allegations date back to 2012 and reportedly continued through 2018 when Bur**** was removed from his positions.

I wonder what dates he served as Bishop?  

ETA:

Found this info:

Quote

The girls said Bur**** groped them while they were taking practice or test drives. They said Bur**** would also make some of them perform jumping jacks and tried to record them on his phone while they were jumping.

 

Quote

Both Portland Community College and the LDS Church are cooperating with the investigation and took immediate steps to remove Bur**** from his positions once they learned of the allegations.

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

These reports just keep happening. Again, no one on one interviews with young children, for prevention of the "just in case"!! It appears this guy was a bishop during the time frame of the abuses.

https://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/2019/09/portland-community-college-drivers-ed-teacher-accused-of-sexually-abusing-20-students.html?fbclid=IwAR22iThWQN42o6p3Zo4-vSe1h1J4NwDh01M5wsy8Z_vTan5gGIksRVYVQks

Stopping one on one interviews will not protect children.  It will only protect the adults.  It is security theater that makes people feel like they are preventing things when in fact they are not preventing.  If there is a bad man who has been called as a bishop, then he can do bad things without the one on one interviews.  One on one interviews do not give bad bishops any more or less access to their victims.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, webbles said:

Stopping one on one interviews will not protect children.  It will only protect the adults.  It is security theater that makes people feel like they are preventing things when in fact they are not preventing.  If there is a bad man who has been called as a bishop, then he can do bad things without the one on one interviews.  One on one interviews do not give bad bishops any more or less access to their victims.

There are other things the Church can do which can A) reduce the risk of abusive or inappropriate behavior by bishops (who are the only ones exempted from the 2-deep leadership rule, at least for bishop interviews), and yet still B) preserve the priest/penitent privilege.  

The Church has already modified its policy to allow adults to sit in on bishop interviews.  This creates some new problems in its own right.  What if the child becomes less inclined to disclose because of the second person?  And what happens if the child/youth confesses to misconduct?  The priest/penitent privilege is invalid when the confession is made in the presence of a third party.

Anyway, I like the idea of the doors to bishops' offices being outfitted with narrow, verticle windows (like in schools), so that passersby could see the bishop, but not hear anything.  As an alternative to that, the Church could install a microphone-less CC camera that would allow the executive secretary to observe the bishop in his office, but not hear anything.

What else?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Ugh....

It states:

And:

I wonder what dates he served as Bishop?  

ETA:

Found this info:

 

 

Someone who knows of him, said he's been bishop for the past 3 to 4 years. 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are other things the Church can do which can A) reduce the risk of abusive or inappropriate behavior by bishops (who are the only ones exempted from the 2-deep leadership rule, at least for bishop interviews), and yet still B) preserve the priest/penitent privilege.  

The Church has already modified its policy to allow adults to sit in on bishop interviews.  This creates some new problems in its own right.  What if the child becomes less inclined to disclose because of the second person?  And what happens if the child/youth confesses to misconduct?  The priest/penitent privilege is invalid when the confession is made in the presence of a third party.

Anyway, I like the idea of the doors to bishops' offices being outfitted with narrow, verticle windows (like in schools), so that passersby could see the bishop, but not hear anything.  As an alternative to that, the Church could install a microphone-less CC camera that would allow the executive secretary to observe the bishop in his office, but not hear anything.

What else?

Thanks,

-Smac

I see no reason not to have closed caption video with the lens on the Bishop, protecting the members privacy but ensuring safety.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Someone who knows of him, said he's been bishop for the past 3 to 4 years. 

Oh..ok.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I see no reason not to have closed caption video with the lens on the Bishop, protecting the members privacy but ensuring safety.  

Do we have any examples or evidence of people being harmed by the bishop during interviews?  Sincere question. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do we have any examples or evidence of people being harmed by the bishop during interviews?  Sincere question. 

You mean actually physically accosting someone or abusing them right in the office?  I doubt that would actually happen....but maybe there have been cases if they are alone in the building?

But there most definitely have been reports of inappropriate questioning (probing sexual questions) or developing relationships where the youth (or other member) then feel comfortable to meet up at another location or allow them into their home when they are alone.  That seems to be the pattern for most reported abuses from my experience (and not just with Mormon leaders, but with other religious leaders, coaches, etc.)

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do we have any examples or evidence of people being harmed by the bishop during interviews?  Sincere question. 

You'd have to wade into the stories, but I remember several that were abused psychologically and a few physically during a bishop's interview. I would have to spend some time going through again, I will if I can. Soon going to babysit my new granddaughter while my daughter gets an oil change, if she will let me know a time, that would be nice!! ;) 

https://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/ I edited the link from before, this has got the full amount of stories vs. the other link I posted. Luckily I was able to edit, now I've ran out of my alloted posts.

 ETA: There are some that seem very suspect though! But a high councilman snapping photos of a girl in a dressing room is a big surprise too. You never know. But just read one where she says when she was 15 she was being interviewed for baptism in a RS room with two male missionaries, and a bishop was standing guard outside the room, while they raped her. That is suspect, but who knows.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You mean actually physically accosting someone or abusing them right in the office?  I doubt that would actually happen....but maybe there have been cases if they are alone in the building?

But there most definitely have been reports of inappropriate questioning (probing sexual questions) or developing relationships where the youth (or other member) then feel comfortable to meet up at another location or allow them into their home when they are alone.  That seems to be the pattern for most reported abuses from my experience (and not just with Mormon leaders, but with other religious leaders, coaches, etc.)

How would a camera on the bishop help with inappropriate questions though, and still maintain the privacy of the other person?  Audio would pick up both people in the room, wouldn’t it?

I think that’s what the real struggle is. Most of the preventive measures we can think of, prevent things that we aren’t really having problems with, but don’t resolve other concerns. 

  • Like 3

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.

×
×
  • Create New...