Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr)

[smac97]

I just saw some news items and social media content about allegations of serious misconduct (sexual, misuse of law enforcement authority/influence, etc.) by Mark Lamb, the former Sheriff of Pinal County, AZ.  A fair amount of documentary evidence is on display (text messages, photos, etc.).  Many of the particulars are, at present, sort of difficult to pin down because there is a fairly strong political aspect to this (Mr. Lamb is apparently running for political office), and because the story seems to be pretty new and scattered across fragmented social media posts which generally lack context and explanation.  Most of the investigative reporting is by Arizona Republic reporters and is behind a paywall.  However, they have posted two YouTube videos summarizing their report:

Arizona Republic reporters detail their investigation into Mark Lamb

How the LDS Church examined claims of Mark Lamb's sexual impropriety

The second link above briefly touches on how local and regional leaders in the Church responded when presented with substantial and seemingly credible information.  Essentially, the bishop and stake president are alleged to have dragged their feet in addressing the allegations, so the complainant went to an Area Seventy, Elder Karl Tilleman, who apparently took the allegations seriously and acted in response thereto, but did not disclose the particulars of the response to the complainant.  The allegations of feet-dragging by local leaders are troubling, particularly given the seriousness of the alleged misconduct.  Bishops and stake presidents really need to follow the instructions in the Handbook.

To their credit, both the complainant and the reporters appear to generally frame the alleged misconduct as a gross violation of both personal trust (the complainant's) and the teachings of the Church.  Too often these stories are framed so as to paint religious adherents as cumulatively hypocritical, when instead the misconduct of the sorts alleged above are violations of the doctrines and teachings of the Church, not manifestations of them.

A few additional thoughts:

1. It is quite unpleasant to bring this topic up, but I think we as Latter-day Saints need to be generally aware of things like this.  We have had ample discussions in the past about misconduct by Latter-day Saints (Tim Ballard, Joseph Bishop, Philander Knox Smartt III) and former Latter-day Saints (Tom Kimball, John Dehlin).  There are sometimes "gossip"-esque and/or sensationalistic elements to these stories, so measured discussion can help clarify what is going on, and how we should respond to such things.  Moreover, for me, there is value in evaluating these troubling stories in ways that allow me to process the initial and reflexive emotional reactions and examine these events relative to the Gospel, the institutional Church, how local and general authorities address them, and so on.

2. I think the intersection of A) membership in the Church, B) serious sexual misconduct, C) hypocrisy and D) public awareness of A-C can create some very bad results for the Church and the Latter-day Saints.  I have previously called this the "Corianton Effect" in a somewhat similar context: 

Report on Catholic Abuse = Cynicism Spreading?

An excerpt:

Quote

You may be wondering why I am starting a thread about this topic, regarding abuse in the Catholic Church, on a board that is supposed to discuss Mormonism.  I will explain:

Part 1: The "Corianton Effect" - Religious Hypocrisy, Once Uncovered, Can and Often Does Taint / Undermine / Destroy the Faith of Others

My explanation starts in Alma 39, which is a letter from Alma to his son, Corianton.  Corianton has presented himself as a representative of God, but then he committed a grave sexual sin, and then others - the Zoramites - found out about it (emphasis added):

Quote

1 And now, my son, I have somewhat more to say unto thee than what I said unto thy brother; for behold, have ye not observed the steadiness of thy brother, his faithfulness, and his diligence in keeping the commandments of God? Behold, has he not set a good example for thee?
2 For thou didst not give so much heed unto my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom.
3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.
4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.
5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?
6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.
7 And now, my son, I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime. I would not dwell upon your crimes, to harrow up your soul, if it were not for your good.
...
11 Suffer not yourself to be led away by any vain or foolish thing; suffer not the devil to lead away your heart again after those wicked harlots. Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words.

I think part of the enormity of Corianton's misconduct was the effect he had on the Zoramites.  The Zoramites saw the hypocrisy of someone representing and bringing a message from God.  The Zoramites rejected the message because of Corianton's hypocrisy.  Corianton, through his hypocrisy, underminedThe Zoramites' faith, or their ability to have faith.  The message presented by Corianton was true and good, but Corianton nevertheless tainted that message in the eyes of the Zoramites. 

For the sake of convenience, let's call this the "Corianton Effect."  Corianton, fortunately, apparently repented (Alma called Corianton again to the work (see Alma 42:31; also 49:30)).  But the lesson for us remains as to the dangers and caustic effects of hypocrisy.

We as Latter-day Saints must be vigilant against both misconduct in the first place and hypocrisy in the second.  I say this mostly for and to myself.  

3. Some years ago a friend of mine, a fellow attorney practicing law in Utah County (including a fair amount of criminal defense and family law), made an observation that has stuck with me.  He said something along the lines of "If everyone in the world were to obey, even on purely secular grounds, the precepts in the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom, huge portions of criminality and family/social disfunction would disappear."  I think he had a point.

4. If the allegations are substantively true, then the complainant and others have been injured.  I hope they get the help they need and deserve.

5. The misconduct of some Latter-day Saints, particularly those who have made covenants and know better, will always be troubling, both for their own sake and for the impact such misconduct has on others.  However, such misconduct should not derail our faith in the Restored Gospel.  That this or that prominent Latter-day Saint has apparently done some very bad things in and prior to 2026 does not retroactively negate the reality of what was restored through Joseph Smith.  Joseph's theophanies and the resulting revealing of important truths about Jesus Christ, the Plan of Salvation, the restoration of the Priesthood, the translation of The Book of Mormon, the organization of the Church, etc.  If these things happen - and I strongly believe they did - then we as Latter-day Saints must stay the course and continue the Lord's work, while at the same time coping with and addressing the ugly consequences of sin.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 21 by smac97

[Senator]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

5. The misconduct of some Latter-day Saints, particularly those who have made covenants and know better, will always be troubling, both for their own sake and for the impact such misconduct has on others.  However, such misconduct should not derail our faith in the Restored Gospel.  That this or that prominent Latter-day Saint has apparently done some very bad things in and prior to 2026 does not retroactively negate the reality of what was restored through Joseph Smith.  Joseph's theophanies and the resulting revealing of important truths about Jesus Christ, the Plan of Salvation, the restoration of the Priesthood, the translation of The Book of Mormon, the organization of the Church, etc.  If these things happen - and I strongly believe they did - then we as Latter-day Saints must stay the course and continue the Lord's work, while at the same time coping with and addressing the ugly consequences of sin.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you also directing this at the women victimized?

 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Senator said:

Quote

The misconduct of some Latter-day Saints, particularly those who have made covenants and know better, will always be troubling, both for their own sake and for the impact such misconduct has on others.  However, such misconduct should not derail our faith in the Restored Gospel.  That this or that prominent Latter-day Saint has apparently done some very bad things in and prior to 2026 does not retroactively negate the reality of what was restored through Joseph Smith.  Joseph's theophanies and the resulting revealing of important truths about Jesus Christ, the Plan of Salvation, the restoration of the Priesthood, the translation of The Book of Mormon, the organization of the Church, etc.  If these things happen - and I strongly believe they did - then we as Latter-day Saints must stay the course and continue the Lord's work, while at the same time coping with and addressing the ugly consequences of sin.

Are you also directing this at the women victimized?

No.  I don't think she is on this board.  I was not directing this comment at any particular person, and was instead referring to Latter-day Saints generally, and those on this board in particular (since they are the only ones who will actually read my comment). 

I have seen many instances of friends and loved ones who have left the Church because of perceived or actual moral/behavioral failings of other Latter-day Saints, particularly leaders. For example, I have a good friend who left the Church because Pres. Nelson encouraged Latter-day Saints to receive the Covid vaccine.  I have another friend who left because she lived in a neighborhood in Utah County that had a lot of "conservatives" in it, and she did not feel "safe" because she is "liberal" (she acknowledged nobody had actually said or done anything threatening to her).  I have read a number of "Why I Left" narratives that center on a Latter-day Saint committing some sort of abuse or other serious wrong.

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).  This is what I had in mind when I said that individualized misconduct by a Latter-day Saint "does not retroactively negate the reality of what was restored through Joseph Smith."

I hope I did not give offense.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Senator]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I hope I did not give offense.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I do not take offense. I am not a victim. But I could certainly understand how a victim could take offense at your generalized statement.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

Are you also directing this at the women victimized?

 

What did that have to do with the victims??

1 hour ago, Senator said:

I do not take offense. I am not a victim. But I could certainly understand how a victim could take offense at your generalized statement.

Do you mean this? 

Quote

then we as Latter-day Saints must stay the course and continue the Lord's work, while at the same time coping with and addressing the ugly consequences of sin.

Quote

 

Do you think victims do not need to cope? Is that what offends you? Hopefully,  you don't think we should not address ugly consequences of sin. 

[Senator]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

What did that have to do with the victims??

Do you mean this? 

Do you think victims do not need to cope? Is that what offends you? Hopefully,  you don't think we should not address ugly consequences of sin. 

!@#&   I am so sick of this Bot crap.   Just wrote a response only to be greeted with a picture quiz to find the motorcycles... and blew my post away.  😤 I'm done

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

I do not take offense. I am not a victim. But I could certainly understand how a victim could take offense at your generalized statement.

I appreciate you taking time to comment.  Could you elaborate and clarify what you found offensive, or potentially offensive, about my generalized statement?

My comment presupposes that the Church and the Restored Gospel are what they claim to be.  If so, what was restored through Joseph Smith starting in 1820 should not, in my view, be retroactively nullified or negated by misconduct of Latter-day Saints in 2026.  Is this what you find offensive?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Senator said:

!@#&   I am so sick of this Bot crap.   Just wrote a response only to be greeted with a picture quiz to find the motorcycles... and blew my post away.  😤 I'm done

Yes, that can be frustrating.  No worries.  Perhaps another time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

Awful. He needs to stop his campaign. Voters won't go for this from a lying deceiving LDS man. The church does not announce excommunications usually, correct? So, he would have to be asked. Someone needs to ask him. Sad his Bishop and Stake President got 'deer in the headlights.' Prominent member and friend...just shows how much it takes to have proper action taken in a timely way. Did they call the hotline right away at least?  Did they get the answer this was between adults...these were serious accusations of infidelity and very improper behavior for a member of the church. In my case when a home teacher harassed my daughter through Facebook through a fake profile, the church did nothing. It wasn't sexual but they did nothing at all and we had to switch wards. The ward did nothing to warn unsuspecting families about this disturbed individual who made many, many people feel very uncomfortable. Bishops would let him latch onto the next family until they figured out something was not right about him...like asking to take their 11-year-old on a road trip and texting their teen daughter privately. It was crazy. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

!@#&   I am so sick of this Bot crap.   Just wrote a response only to be greeted with a picture quiz to find the motorcycles... and blew my post away.  😤 I'm done

Hopefully you will check back in but on the Bot thread Nemesis says….

Quote

Only should be happening on log in unless you don’t allow cookies.  

 

Edited May 21 by Calm

[smac97]

17 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Awful. He needs to stop his campaign. Voters won't go for this from a lying deceiving LDS man.

Yes, the optics are very bad, even if the misconduct has not been definitively established.

17 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The church does not announce excommunications usually, correct? So, he would have to be asked. Someone needs to ask him.

He may demur.  Such things may be better addressed privately.  And that's difficult where he is running for public office.

17 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Sad his Bishop and Stake President got 'deer in the headlights.' Prominent member and friend...just shows how much it takes to have proper action taken in a timely way.

From Section 32.6.1 of the Handbook:

Quote

32.6.1

When a Membership Council Is Required

The bishop or stake president must hold a membership council when information indicates that a member may have committed any of the sins described in this section. For these sins, a council is required regardless of a member’s level of spiritual maturity and gospel understanding.

See 32.11 for potential outcomes of councils that are convened for the sins listed in this section. Informal membership restrictions are not an option for these councils.

Sins That Require Holding a Membership Council

• Murder

• Rape

• Sexual assault conviction

• Child or youth abuse

• Abuse of a spouse or another adult (as outlined in 38.6.2.4)

• Predatory behavior (violent, sexual, or financial)

• Incest

• Child pornography (as outlined in 38.6.6)

• Plural marriage

• Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position

• Most felony convictions

...

32.6.1.2

Sexual Immorality

Incest. A membership council is required for incest as defined in 38.6.10. Withdrawing a person’s Church membership is almost always required.

Child Pornography. A membership council is required if a person is involved in child pornography as outlined in 38.6.6.

Plural Marriage. A membership council is required if a person knowingly enters into a plural marriage. Some plural marriages may occur in secret, with a spouse not knowing about one or more other spouses. Withdrawing a person’s Church membership is required if a person knowingly enters into plural marriage.

Sexual Predatory Behavior. A membership council is required if an adult repeatedly harms people sexually and is a threat to others.

...

32.6.2

When a Membership Council May Be Necessary

A membership council may be necessary in the following instances.
...

32.6.2.2

Sexual Immorality

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman (see Exodus 20:14; Doctrine and Covenants 63:16). A membership council may be necessary for sexual immorality as described in 38.6.5. In these situations, a council is more likely to be necessary to help a member repent if he or she has violated temple covenants or if the sin was repetitive. See 32.6.1.2 for when a council is required.

...

38.6.5

Chastity and Fidelity

The Lord’s law of chastity is:

• Abstinence from sexual relations outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman.

• Fidelity within marriage.

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. In God’s sight, moral cleanliness is very important. Violations of the law of chastity are very serious (see Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:28; Alma 39:5). Those involved misuse the sacred power God has given to create life.

A Church membership council may be necessary if a member:

• Has sexual relations outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman, such as adultery, fornication, same-sex relations, and sexual encounters online or over the phone (see 32.6.2).

• Is in a form of marriage or partnership that is outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman, such as cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage.

• Uses pornography intensively or compulsively, causing significant harm to a member’s marriage or family (see 38.6.13).

The decision about whether to hold a membership council in these situations depends on many circumstances (see 32.7). For example, a council is more likely to be necessary to help a member repent if he or she has violated temple covenants or if the sin was repetitive.

See 32.6.1.2 for when a council is required for sexual sins.

In some cases, personal counseling and informal membership restrictions may be sufficient (see 32.8).

So perhaps this is something of a judgment call.  That said, I just read the azcentral.com story.  Quite damning and troubling.  

17 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Did they call the hotline right away at least?  Did they get the answer this was between adults...these were serious accusations of infidelity and very improper behavior for a member of the church.

The gist is that the local leaders dragged their feet, so the complainant went to the Area Seventy, Elder Tilleman, who took action but did not disclose the results to the complainant.

17 hours ago, bsjkki said:

In my case when a home teacher harassed my daughter through Facebook through a fake profile, the church did nothing. It wasn't sexual but they did nothing at all and we had to switch wards. The ward did nothing to warn unsuspecting families about this disturbed individual who made many, many people feel very uncomfortable. Bishops would let him latch onto the next family until they figured out something was not right about him...like asking to take their 11-year-old on a road trip and texting their teen daughter privately. It was crazy. 

I am sorry to hear this happened.  

Some years ago our ward's bishop noticed a new face in the congregation.  The man introduced himself and said he had lost his membership due to sexual abuse of children.  The bishop said he could come to church services, but he would need to be accompanied by another ward member.  The bishop had a ward member, a former police officer, greet him at the door and accompany him while he was in the building.  The man only came to services only a few times.  The bishop took appropriate precautions, and I think he did a good job in addressing the circumstances. 

Sometimes bishops are not as attuned to their duties and the need to protect the ward members and the reputation of the Church.  They can generally do so by following the policies in the Handbook.  In the Mark Lamb matter, it appears that this either did not happen, or else the local leaders slow-walked things for months.  That must have been a terrible feeling for the complainant.  The news item I just now read says she left the Church over this.  That's a very understandable response.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22 by smac97

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Senator said:

But I could certainly understand how a victim could take offense at your generalized statement.

I assume you are thinking given the women’s experience with church leaders, first pretty much ignoring complaints and substantial evidence and then the higher authorities placing confidentiality for the predators over resolution (healing) for the women who were their victims, that telling these women to “stay the course” when they likely feel the leadership hasn’t is problematic.

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

even if the misconduct has not been definitively established.

Nude pictures were published and apparently not denied as fake or stolen.  Why is that not definitive? (Serious question, not a challenge)

added:  never mind, I found an article that said he denied it, calling the claims and photos a political hit job.  Maybe I missed that in the video:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/home-wrecked-wife-slams-swinger-trump-endorsed-candidate-mark-lamb/

Kind of shocked there is no mention on his wiki page.

Edited May 22 by Calm

[The Nehor]

I would usually say that expecting church leaders to fix this situation is pointless in the first place. What exactly were they expected to do? Then again he was the sheriff so going to secular authorities likely would have been pretty pointless too.

I am also having some trouble following some of these stories. One woman is upset at Lamb because her husband who was a friend of Lamb’s had sex with Lamb’s wife and Lamb somehow destroyed the marriage. Not Lamb’s wife or her husband? I mean, I generally don’t like swingers especially when some of them are also cheating but that is what this sounds like. Then there are others about Lamb pursuing other women. Possibly with his wife’s consent? First rule of ENM (Ethical Non-Monogamy) is don’t try to drag monogamous people into it. It never works well. Then again there is nothing ethical about any of this. Also this kind of thing is why even other Swingers make fun of Mormon Swingers.

The real worrying stuff is Lamb’s implicit threats to use his law enforcement power to stop the people trying to blow the whistle on his sexcapades. At that point it was unlikely local leaders would do anything. Really the women should have gone to the press first since it was unlikely religious authority would do much beyond try to protect the victims and the perpetrator from being publicly outed.

While I agree Church policy in the handbook wasn’t followed what did happen is very normal in cases like this. They did follow what some would call the “Unwritten Order of Things” where you try to keep things confidential and move slowly and sorta hope the whole thing will blow over and keep it close to your chest to avoid embarrassment to the victims or the perpetrators or the families of the victim or the families of the perpetrators.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then again there is nothing ethical about any of this.

Swinging as a practice or Lamb’s behaviour?

[Calm]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

. They did follow what some would call the “Unwritten Order of Things” where you try to keep things confidential and move slowly and sorta hope the whole thing will blow over and keep it close to your chest to avoid embarrassment to the victims or the perpetrators or the families of the victim or the families of the perpetrators.

It is unfortunate in our American culture that victims are still often viewed by many as broken or less than those who have not been victimized.  It occurs too often with chronic illness as well.  The person becomes in some others’ eyes what is “wrong” with them.  I hope at least with most such is born of a desire to help those in need, but from many experiences I have heard related, it comes across as more not wanting to have to change themselves, to adapt so others who need accommodations can get them.

I think this is why confidentiality is seen as so important by many, because they know being known as a victim or someone dealing with illness creates unwanted additional burdens even if they typically don’t understand the complications.  But such behaviour (emphasizing confidentiality) also perpetuates the reason confidentiality is useful.

When it comes to perpetrators, besides covering for friends or not wanting to believe their friends are evil (who wants to believe even very good people can do bad things, people aren’t typically all good or all bad; if we accept that, then it becomes harder to feel safe in this world), I believe most understand it can be harder to change if one gets labeled and when that label disgusts or creates fear in others, people will distance themselves, life becomes harder and more stressful.  Not only will that make it harder to control impulses, but it may it feel like there is no reason to control themselves since they are doomed to carry the label anyway.  So the belief it will be easier to repent/change/control oneself if less people know of someone’s immoral behaviour may override beliefs that exposure will be more beneficial in the long run.

Part of me leans towards ripping off the bandaid, let’s drop the confidentiality now so we as a society can move to a healthier relationship with victims and others.  Maybe it will even help perpetrators who want to change have better access to support like counseling, etc.  Another part of me knows some changes take a long time and shaming victims has been going for millennia, why make it worse for victims now plus there are those who make money off of others losing control and that is likely to always be with us until money somehow becomes meaningless.

Edited May 24 by Calm

[rpn]

Church Councils and discipline requires witnesses.  If the perp denies and two or more witnesses aren't available, then what's the council to do.

And when allegations against a candidate first are raised the context of a political campaign, there is also a need to avoid getting sucked in to politics, which isn't where the church wants to be, nor where it is easy to distinguish accurate info from political hatchet jobs.

 

[smac97]

On 5/24/2026 at 3:18 AM, The Nehor said:

I would usually say that expecting church leaders to fix this situation is pointless in the first place. What exactly were they expected to do? Then again he was the sheriff so going to secular authorities likely would have been pretty pointless too.

I agree that some members appear to misapprehend just what the Church can do in circumstances such as these.  D&C 134:10 merits some attention:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

I am not sure if the complainant in this case had expectations beyond the above.

On 5/24/2026 at 3:18 AM, The Nehor said:

I am also having some trouble following some of these stories. One woman is upset at Lamb because her husband who was a friend of Lamb’s had sex with Lamb’s wife and Lamb somehow destroyed the marriage. Not Lamb’s wife or her husband? I mean, I generally don’t like swingers especially when some of them are also cheating but that is what this sounds like. Then there are others about Lamb pursuing other women. Possibly with his wife’s consent? First rule of ENM (Ethical Non-Monogamy) is don’t try to drag monogamous people into it. It never works well. Then again there is nothing ethical about any of this. Also this kind of thing is why even other Swingers make fun of Mormon Swingers.

From the story:

Quote

A former Arizona sheriff is running for Congress on a family values platform. But he sought to conceal allegations of improprieties, an Arizona Republic investigation found.

An Arizona Republic investigation found women allege congressional candidate Mark Lamb sent explicit messages and nude photos.

One woman said Lamb, then a sheriff, threatened her with a felony charge to stop her from posting about their alleged relationship.
...
Mark Lamb was in his first term as Pinal County sheriff when a woman said he threatened to send state police after her.

She claimed he was trying to stop her from publicly posting nude pictures and sexual messages he had sent.

Lamb, who is now running for Congress, appeared to suggest he could control the Arizona Department of Public Safety and stop any investigation if the woman agreed to stop posting on social media, messages and interviews show.
...
One Facebook message included a link to the state's revenge-porn statute and said violations are a "Class 4 felony," screenshots show.

"Please just no more posting," read the back-to-back messages, accompanied by Lamb's profile picture. "I will call DPS."
...
The wife of one of Mark Lamb's longtime friends publicly accused the Lambs of engaging her husband in trysts, which she said led to their divorce. Her allegations of infidelity prompted a 2018 inquiry by the LDS Church, interviews, text messages and emails show.

Lots of alleged misconduct going on here, but a LEO threatening to use the State's law enforcement apparatus in this way seems troubling.  Looks like we agree on this point:

On 5/24/2026 at 3:18 AM, The Nehor said:

The real worrying stuff is Lamb’s implicit threats to use his law enforcement power to stop the people trying to blow the whistle on his sexcapades. At that point it was unlikely local leaders would do anything. Really the women should have gone to the press first since it was unlikely religious authority would do much beyond try to protect the victims and the perpetrator from being publicly outed.

While I agree Church policy in the handbook wasn’t followed what did happen is very normal in cases like this. They did follow what some would call the “Unwritten Order of Things” where you try to keep things confidential and move slowly and sorta hope the whole thing will blow over and keep it close to your chest to avoid embarrassment to the victims or the perpetrators or the families of the victim or the families of the perpetrators.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MorningStar]

What I've learned in unpleasant ways is that women will do what men won't. 😠 I confronted the pedo in my ward over a year ago and men kept saying, "We shouldn't focus on his sins."

Bishops, if you can't handle confronting predators, find the angriest lady in your ward and she'll do it for you. For real. 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, MorningStar said:

What I've learned in unpleasant ways is that women will do what men won't. 😠 I confronted the pedo in my ward over a year ago and men kept saying, "We shouldn't focus on his sins."

Bishops, if you can't handle confronting predators, find the angriest lady in your ward and she'll do it for you. For real. 

I saw a study a couple of years ago that says that men struggle to believe it when another man is accused of sexual crimes or misconduct because they can relate to the man and think of how they would feel if someone was accusing them of such things and how they would want other men to respond in that situation.  They don't relate to the victim at all so they subconsciously distance themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective.  It's not that they believe the man is guilty and needs to be protected, it's that they tend to automatically believe either in his innocence** or in his repentance and redeemability without life-changing consequences. 

Which is to say that you are spot on MS!  Not only are women better at sensing and predicting danger in general (including dangerous people), we are less likely to overlook creepy behavior to protect the status quo.  Yes, women protect perpetrators too sometimes but it's almost always in cases where they are personally involved or related to the person.  So if that's not the case, then that lady can probably be trusted.  Men in power need to utilize the women around them more in fighting against this kind of evil.

**That's important in a court of law but in real life when people need to be protected from the evil designs of others, it's a huge flaw.

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw a study a couple of years ago that says that men struggle to believe it when another man is accused of sexual crimes or misconduct because they can relate to the man and think of how they would feel if someone was accusing them of such things and how they would want other men to respond in that situation. 

I would be interested in seeing that study, if you have access to it.

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They don't relate to the victim at all so they subconsciously distance themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective. 

I would be curious about this.  It seems incongruent with a few generalized observations:

First, plenty of men have loved ones who are or could be subject to abuse, and hence would find any abuse abhorrent, and hence they can and do "relate to the victim." 

Second, plenty of men have themselves been victims of abuse, and so not only "relate to" victims, but have experienced abuse themselves.

Third, I think some (many?) men are scared of being falsely accused of misconduct of this sort.  This has perhaps been augmented by the past many years of the "Believe All Women" and "MeToo" regimes, which have effectively inverted the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption, at least as to men as a category.  Perhaps some men are therefore reluctant to reflexively and uncritically accept every published allegation of misconduct, and this reluctance is then construed by some as "subconsciously distanc{ing} themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective."

A while back a young woman of my acquaintance rather matter-of-factly stated that it is entirely normal in her "generation" of young women to view all men - all men - as "potential rapists," and that she shares this sentiment.  She was surprised that I was surprised at this statement.  In fact, I think she was a little offended that I was surprised.  I asked her "What would you say to a friend if she told you that she views all black men as 'potential rapists?'"  She responded along the lines of "Well, that would be terrible and racist."  I asked her why, since some black men do commit rape, and she responded: "Yes, but you can't blame all black men just because some few of them do something wrong."  I then told her that I agreed with her on that point, but I then asked why it does not apply to her "all men are 'potential rapists'" statement.  She could not formulate a response.

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Which is to say that you are spot on MS!  Not only are women better at sensing and predicting danger in general (including dangerous people), we are less likely to overlook creepy behavior to protect the status quo. 

Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, women protect perpetrators too sometimes but it's almost always in cases where they are personally involved or related to the person.  So if that's not the case, then that lady can probably be trusted.  Men in power need to utilize the women around them more in fighting against this kind of evil.

I would like to better understand how this shakes out in the real world.  What is it that women - as a category - can do regarding evaluating claims of sexual misconduct that men - as a category - cannot do (or do as well)?  Also, how would a bishop utilize "the women around {him}" to assess allegations of misconduct reported to him?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26 by smac97

[MorningStar]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I saw a study a couple of years ago that says that men struggle to believe it when another man is accused of sexual crimes or misconduct because they can relate to the man and think of how they would feel if someone was accusing them of such things and how they would want other men to respond in that situation.  They don't relate to the victim at all so they subconsciously distance themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective.  It's not that they believe the man is guilty and needs to be protected, it's that they tend to automatically believe either in his innocence** or in his repentance and redeemability without life-changing consequences. 

Which is to say that you are spot on MS!  Not only are women better at sensing and predicting danger in general (including dangerous people), we are less likely to overlook creepy behavior to protect the status quo.  Yes, women protect perpetrators too sometimes but it's almost always in cases where they are personally involved or related to the person.  So if that's not the case, then that lady can probably be trusted.  Men in power need to utilize the women around them more in fighting against this kind of evil.

**That's important in a court of law but in real life when people need to be protected from the evil designs of others, it's a huge flaw.

 

That's really discouraging, but also not surprising. I will never talk to a priesthood leader again without a therapist present. People also have misguided views of what repentance is. If someone is forgiven, that doesn't mean we hide their past. That doesn't mean you trust them. I told a friend last night, "If someone breaks the law of chastity and gets herpes in the process, they can be forgiven, but they still have herpes. When you are a pedophile and you prey on kids, you have social herpes forever!" 

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

That's really discouraging, but also not surprising. I will never talk to a priesthood leader again without a therapist present.

Could you elaborate on this?  What is it that "priesthood leader{s}" are not doing that you think they should be doing (or vice versa)?

46 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

People also have misguided views of what repentance is. If someone is forgiven, that doesn't mean we hide their past.

I am interested in better understanding your perspective on this.  Could you explain what "hide their past" means in relation to priesthood leaders?

I served as my ward's bishop some years ago.  In that capacity, I regularly received information that was intended to be held in confidence.  Broadly, the Church expects bishops to keep such confidences (legal obligations may require deviation from this), and I did that.  Do you think this was an incorrect course of action for me?

46 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

That doesn't mean you trust them.

Trust must be earned, yes.  And sometimes even then an individual member will almost certainly face constraints on his activity in the Church based on bad behavior.  

46 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

I told a friend last night, "If someone breaks the law of chastity and gets herpes in the process, they can be forgiven, but they still have herpes. When you are a pedophile and you prey on kids, you have social herpes forever!" 

Yes, someone who has abused children has likely permanently lost any privilege of serving in a calling in which he interacts with kids.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

IMO church leaders are woefully undertrained regarding how to deal with perps. It’s hard enough as a trained therapist. 

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

IMO church leaders are woefully undertrained regarding how to deal with perps. It’s hard enough as a trained therapist. 

I would like to better understand this.  What is it that you think the Church can/ought/must do to properly "deal with perps" that it (or, more precisely, its bishops) are not currently doing?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I would like to better understand this.  What is it that you think the Church can/ought/must do to properly "deal with perps" that it (or, more precisely, its bishops) are not currently doing?

Thanks,

-Smac

My experience is vast and anecdotal., It’s just my opinion working as a professional therapist directly with Bishops and with numerous victims. 
I don’t know how much the church can do considering that this type of training would require a lot of time and effort and this is a Layperson church. 

Edited Wednesday at 01:03 AM by MustardSeed