Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bluebell

High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

I think the key word in Nehor's post is 'gossip' or unsubstantiated accusations.  The unsubstantiated accusations against Dehlin are in the accuser's words and not filtered through a secondary source.  The unsubstantiated accusations against Murdock are from secondary sources, not primary sources.  I'm guessing that's what Nehor means.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

Except that these statements aren't "first hand."  Dehlin has provided only hearsay.  Worse, he has only provided anonymous hearsay.  

Who are "all of these" members, neighbors, coworkers, etc.?  How do you know that they are Murdock's neighbors, coworkers, etc.?  How many of them are there?  How do we gauge their credibility?  What have they claimed?  What slant/gloss has Dehlin added purveying their hearsay?

This seems like a rush to judgment.  Perhaps rather then feel obligated to accept or "disregard," we should take a step back and wait for better, more competent evidence?  (And that assumes this story is even worth the attention it's getting.)

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder why this Murdock guy was never opposed when his name was presented for a sustaining vote? or if he was how that all hit the fan and he got sustained anyways

Share this post


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

I think the key word in Nehor's post is 'gossip' or unsubstantiated accusations.  The unsubstantiated accusations against Dehlin are in the accuser's words and not filtered through a secondary source.  The unsubstantiated accusations against Murdock are from secondary sources, not primary sources.  I'm guessing that's what Nehor means.

I think the accusations are from those involved (first hand) aren't they?  (I'm not sure if they are somewhere that we can read....I haven't followed it that closely.)  But if some come forward and speak out publicly (in the podcast, etc.), that would be actual "accuser's words".  

Or are you saying because they all were reported to Dehlin, he may be lying or not accurately reporting their first hand statements?   I highly doubt he'd lie about ALL of them....just my opinion.

I guess we will just have to wait and see if more come forward with more statements and if there are more charges against Steven Murdock.  Either way I would not say that "The incidents about Dehlin being involved in sexual misconduct are much more definitive and substantiated" is true.(at least not right now).

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.  

I never said I believe the reports about Dehlin. They are, as I said, gossip. They seem like more credible gossip to me because they are not “faithful members” confiding in an apostate for some reason. Neither sets of gossip are very credible to me. I just find one set of possibly made up stuff a little more likely then the other. 

As I said (and you seem to have missed if that attempt to convince was aimed at me) the case against Murdock for this incident is very damning and much more compelling then any of the gossip.

The only reason I have to like the guy is he shares a last name with some of my ancestors. Then I reflected and hate the calumny he is adding to the name. As if Macgyver had not already done enough. :( 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Except that these statements aren't "first hand."  Dehlin has provided only hearsay.  Worse, he has only provided anonymous hearsay.  

Who are "all of these" members, neighbors, coworkers, etc.?  How do you know that they are Murdock's neighbors, coworkers, etc.?  How many of them are there?  How do we gauge their credibility?  What have they claimed?  What slant/gloss has Dehlin added purveying their hearsay?

This seems like a rush to judgment.  Perhaps rather then feel obligated to accept or "disregard," we should take a step back and wait for better, more competent evidence?  (And that assumes this story is even worth the attention it's getting.)

Thanks,

-Smac

That's why I asked if this could be documented:

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 .

I still stand by my opinion that this is not true:

Quote

"The incidents about Dehlin being involved in sexual misconduct are much more definitive and substantiated"

 

Share this post


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

I highly doubt he'd lie about ALL of them....just my opinion.

This is a problem with the human condition. We assume if enough stories are told there must be some truth in them. It is how the really bad antimormons of the past had some successes. You could discredit and correct bad information after bad information and show the source is quite willing to blatantly lie but if there is enough volume people too often still assume there must be truth in some of it. Liars and conmen use this loophole  human reasoning all the time. You drown people in enough untruths and they eventually start to believe some of it while still imagining they are skeptical. I would say that if he lied about one it is more likely he lied about all of them. Add in that he has vested financial interest in at least appearing to have inside information on something like this and yeah.......I have no reason to trust him.

There is a reason that in the Book of Mormon lying was a criminal offense and liars are lumped in with murderers and adulterers in all of the scriptural “people going to hell” lists. Liars murder the truth or the facts, which are the primary touchpoint humans have in this existence to relate to each other with.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is a problem with the human condition. We assume if enough stories are told there must be some truth in them. It is how the really bad antimormons of the past had some successes. You could discredit and correct bad information after bad information and show the source is quite willing to blatantly lie but if there is enough volume people too often still assume there must be truth in some of it. Liars and conmen use this loophole  human reasoning all the time. You drown people in enough untruths and they eventually start to believe some of it while still imagining they are skeptical. I would say that if he lied about one it is more likely he lied about all of them. Add in that he has vested financial interest in at least appearing to have inside information on something like this and yeah.......I have no reason to trust him.

I'd be much more suspect of any of his reported statements if this guy didn't seem to already have issues in his past record and been caught in the act and arrested and charged.

So yes, I take all of that into consideration.  But I'll wait and see if there's more evidence brought against him from these firsthand witnesses, etc.  Until then, I'm still suspect of them....but it's difficult to believe Dehlin would lie about all of these statements, IMO.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 8/23/2019 at 11:40 AM, ALarson said:
Quote
Quote

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).

...

Except that these statements aren't "first hand."  Dehlin has provided only hearsay.  Worse, he has only provided anonymous hearsay. 

...

That's why I asked if this could be documented:

My point remains, though: We aren't dealing with "first hand accounts of this guy."  We are instead dealing with hearsay-within-hearsay.  From anonymous sources.  Filtered through the anything-but-objective and I'm-only-pursuing-this-story-because-I-can-use-it-to-make-the-Church-look-bad and I-have-personal-biases-and-financial-incentives-to-sensationalize-the-"evidence" John Dehlin.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'd be much more suspect of any of his reported statements if this guy didn't seem to already have issues in his past record and been caught in the act and arrested and charged.

So yes, I take all of that into consideration.  But I'll wait and see if there's more evidence brought against him from these firsthand witnesses, etc.  Until then, I'm still suspect of them....but it's difficult to believe Dehlin would lie about all of these statements, IMO.

Why is it difficult to believe that someone who lies a little would lie a lot? I am not 100% on him lying but if he made up any of them why assume any of them are authentic?

Oh, I suspect Murdock has done all kinds of things in his past. I just do not find it credible Dehlin dug them all up in what? Two days? That an apostate was able to pry stories out of what he makes out to be around a dozen active members with all his crosschecking he insists he is doing. They went to him instead of the press?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My point remains, though: We aren't dealing with "first hand accounts of this guy."  We are instead dealing with hearsay-within-hearsay. 

We are dealing with quoting and reporting first hand reports.....that I can agree on and I've stated they should be treated with skepticism.

What we do have though is this guy being caught in the act and also reports such as this:

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 .

Other than that, we have numerous other eye witness statements given to Dehlin and we will just have to wait and see if any of those witnesses actually come forward, speak on the record, or press more charges against Murdock.  I certainly wouldn't just throw all of these statements out though and disregard them....just my own opinion here.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 8/23/2019 at 11:46 AM, ALarson said:

I'd be much more suspect of any of his reported statements if this guy didn't seem to already have issues in his past record

Um, how do you know this?  What "issues?"  It looks like you are relying 100% on anonymously-sourced hearsay gossip provided by John Dehlin.  Is that correct?

Quote

and been caught in the act and arrested and charged.

This part is a quite different.  The witness to the misconduct is not anonymous.  We have verbatim quotes from her, her own words.  Photographs (of Murdock at the mall, so nominally corroborative).  Law enforcement is involved.  An arrest was made, thus indicating the existence of probable cause.

None of this can be said about Dehlin's anonymously-sourced hearsay.

Quote

So yes, I take all of that into consideration.  But I'll wait and see if there's more evidence brought against him from these firsthand witnesses, etc.  Until then, I'm still suspect of them....but it's difficult to believe Dehlin would lie about all of these statements, IMO.

He doesn't have to be lying.  Gloss and embellishment and exaggeration can do all sorts of things to distort the factual picture.  Moreover, his "sources" could be lying, or glossing/embellishing/exaggerating.  

I think the whole McKenna Denson fiasco is illustrative of the need for people to step back and be cautious, to avoid uncritical and credulous and knee-jerk and premature acceptance of allegations like these.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Why is it difficult to believe that someone who lies a little would lie a lot? I am not 100% on him lying but if he made up any of them why assume any of them are authentic?

Well, we don't know that he lied about any of them.  I've said they should be looked at with skepticism....but there's no evidence that Dehlin has lied, is there?  

Like I just posted to Smac....

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

we have numerous other eye witness statements given to Dehlin and we will just have to wait and see if any of those witnesses actually come forward, speak on the record, or press more charges against Murdock.  I certainly wouldn't just throw all of these statements out though and disregard them....just my own opinion here.

 

And now I'm moving on....I've pretty much given my opinion here and will just watch this case and see if more witnesses actually come forward with statements or more charges....

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

  I certainly wouldn't just throw all of these statements out though and disregard them....just my own opinion here.

Right. I am wary of this stuff being so rapidly put together, and I'm not very fond of Dehlin's public persona, but he does put himself on the line when he brings forward such reports. I hope he did his due dilligence. If not, let it be known.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Um, how do you know this?  What "issues?" 

I was referring to this:

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 .

 

ETA:

Let me also state that I am absolutely not a Dehlin fan.  I really quite honestly don't care much for him and I don't follow him or listen to his podcasts.

I also don't like what he's doing here....piling on with making more accusations and information public.  I feel bad for Murdock's family and this just makes it all much more painful.

 

I'm truly moving on now.... :) 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:
Quote

My point remains, though: We aren't dealing with "first hand accounts of this guy."  We are instead dealing with hearsay-within-hearsay. 

We are dealing with quoting and reporting first hand reports.....

No, we are not.  We are dealing with anonymously-sourced second-hand reports.  We have John Dehlin saying what others are saying.  Each and every word and syllable coming from John Dehlin is hearsay.  Second-hand information.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

that I can agree on and I've stated they should be treated with skepticism.

I tend to want more precision when talking about things like "first hand" versus "second hand" accounts.  Generally speaking, there is a big difference between the testimony of a percipient witness (like the victim in Tennessee) compared to hearsay testimony from a non-percipient witness (like Dehlin).

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What we do have though is this guy being caught in the act

We have him arrested, based on what is likely probable cause.  And we have public statements from the vic.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

and also reports such as this:

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 .

 

Again, this is anonymously-sourced hearsay.  Gossip.  That's all.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Other than that, we have numerous other eye witness statements given to Dehlin and

No.  We have anonymously-sourced hearsay statements.  Who are these eyewitnesses?  Where are their statements?  What did they see?  What did they personally experience?  Where?  When?

That we have "numerous" anonymously-sourced hearsay statements (through the same biased and financially-incentivized source: John Dehlin) does nothing to bolster the inherent weakness of these purported statements.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

we will just have to wait and see if any of those witnesses actually come forward, speak on the record, or press more charges against Murdock. 

Meanwhile, I think it would be better for us to not jump to conclusions, nor rush to judgment.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I certainly wouldn't just throw all of these statements out though and disregard them....just my own opinion here.

Perhaps we should hold them in abeyance, then.  Neither rely upon them nor reject them out-of-hand.  Let's wait and see what, if anything, is forthcoming.

Or better yet, perhaps this story is not really worth a whole lot of attention.  I can't help but feel badly for his family members and friends, who are all likely feeling humiliated at this public spectacle.

And the only reason it's getting airtime is because John Dehlin is using it to make the Church look bad.  To embarrass us.  I'm not inclined to continue following him down this rabbit trail.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

...Oh, I suspect Murdock has done all kinds of things in his past. I just do not find it credible Dehlin dug them all up in what? Two days?...

It looks like Murdock was arrested on August 13th which was reported in the media. Dehlin says he started receiving information about Murdock on August 14th. He didn't post his podcast until August 22nd. That's more than two days.

M.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the accusations are from those involved (first hand) aren't they?  (I'm not sure if they are somewhere that we can read....I haven't followed it that closely.)  But if some come forward and speak out publicly (in the podcast, etc.), that would be actual "accuser's words".  

No, we are hearing about them from Dehlin.  That means they are secondhand information (they have filtered through two people to get to us--the accuser and Dehlin, and are based on his research, not on his personal experience with Murdock).  If we were hearing about them from the actually people who experienced them they would be firsthand.  The accusations against Dehlin were from the person invovled, so firsthand.

Quote

Or are you saying because they all were reported to Dehlin, he may be lying or not accurately reporting their first hand statements?   I highly doubt he'd lie about ALL of them....just my opinion.

It's not about lying or trustworthiness, it's just the nature of the difference between firsthand and secondhand accounts.  What we've got from Dehlin about Murdock right now is hearsay.  It could definitely still be true, but right now it's not much more than rumor or gossip because it's not from any of the people actually involved.   There's a reason that hearsay isn't admissible in court.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, we are hearing about them from Dehlin.

(I do want to respond....then I have to get off of here!!)

I disagree....

Here is what I stated:

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

if some come forward and speak out publicly (in the podcast, etc.), that would be actual "accuser's words".  

If those who speak out or make statements have been ones who were sexually harassed or abused by Murdock (which is what I was referring to above but maybe needed to be more clear?), they indeed would be the "accuser's words".

I think we should at least pay attention to what's being stated (with skepticism) if we are following this case.  I have a difficult time believing that Dehlin would actually lie or fabricate all of these statements.  

 

I also think we should be very careful about stating that Dehlin is a sexual predictor or abuser.  Have charges been filed against him?  Or is this just a statement posted online by someone?  Just curious....

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

(I do want to respond....then I have to get off of here!!)

I disagree....

You can't really disagree with the actual definition of the words though.  

Dehlin heard firsthand accounts but because we are hearing them from Dehlin, we are hearing secondhand accounts.   If someone says "this happened to me" that's a firsthand account.  If someone says "this person told me that this happened to them" that's a secondhand account.  

If someone came forward and spoke openly then yes, those would be firsthand accounts, but they haven't yet, so there are no firsthand accounts yet.  That might change in the future, but we are talking about the here and now.  And I don't think anyone on here has accused Dehlin of anything, have they?  

All that has been said is that, as of right now, we have secondhand accounts of Murdock's sexual harassment accusations and firsthand accounts of Dehlin's sexual harassment accusations.  Like I said before, that could easily change (and I'm guessing probably will, rather quickly) and we could end up with firsthand accounts of both, but as of right now we have no firsthand accounts of Murdock's sexual harassment accusations.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You can't really disagree with the actual definition of the words though.  

Dehlin heard firsthand accounts but because we are hearing them from Dehlin, we are hearing secondhand accounts.  

Once again, that's not what I was referring to.  I stated:

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If some come forward and speak out publicly (in the podcast, etc.), that would be actual "accuser's words".  

If those who speak out or make statements have been ones who were sexually harassed or abused by Murdock (which is what I was referring to above but maybe needed to be more clear?), they indeed would be the "accuser's words".

Sorry if I didn't make that clear (but I've tried to now a few times!).

 

Quote

 And I don't think anyone on here has accused Dehlin of anything, have they?  

Quote

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72152-high-councilman-arrested-for-filming-a-woman-getting-undressed/?do=findComment&comment=1209924757

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.

 

Gotta run....seriously :) 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if this High Councilman was really "high" at the time?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Once again, that's not what I was referring to.  I stated:

Sorry if I didn't make that clear (but I've tried to now a few times!).

Gotta run....seriously :) 

Got it.  Just to clarify, Nehor (and myself) were not speaking about possible future events, but what has actually occurred so far.  What the victims may do in the future doesn't seem relevant to the point that we were each making, so that's probably where the confusion came from.

Thanks for clearing it up.  :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...