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

[Calm]

This whole conversation is reminding me why I have moved to pushing to allow use of very assertive, even aggressive language in limited contexts when it comes to women’s concerns.  

From the beginning of the conversation my inclinations have been to compromise, move closer to smac and Danzo’s positions, trying to find things we can agree on, adjusting my own so it will be more acceptable and understandable, finding things to be complimentary about when it was appropriate so I showed I was listening and trying to understand and validate their experiences, adding “for me, imo, and “from my POV” rather than making outright assertions to show I crept there are other valid ways to look at this.

Honestly, I haven’t seen from my POV any such inclination to do the same from their position (Danzo did give me a rep point, but did not engage for a post so I am wondering if it was because I said I saw him and Smac as sincere in wanting to protect women).  I have tried for the most part to not position their comments as demonizing women’s efforts to be safe, but the constant theme from them seems to be I and others are using ugly, etc language.

There is no way if this conversation was taking place in person I would not be intimidated, second guessing myself and my reasoning to the point I would at least back down publicly…especially since the very few times I have been able to be this assertive in public was in defending another from being verbally abused and the result was the abuse got worse.  My experience confronting men in general has not been good, Iow.  And that includes times that were high risk.  I don’t see my tendency to accommodate as that protective in such situations.  It seems instead to more likely get me in deeper.

I hear of and see similar responses from women and girls enough to know I am not unusual in this.  I have been able to develop the ability to survive relatively civil confrontation, including pressure to view my position as having no validity online because I have been given an anchor to trust myself by the long term support of others.  They have essentially given me permission to believe in myself strongly enough not to allow other influences to overwhelm me…online.  In person, I haven’t reached that point yet unfortunately. 

I think it’s very important to find some way to give women anchors to believe in themselves, to not doubt their own judgment so they do not replace their appropriate discomfort and reservations with passivity and submission.  I think our culture is moving towards setting young women up to be more confident, but it isn’t there yet and the inertia from millennia of being told to submit is massive.  I don’t see subtle or passive and accommodating approaches as moving that bulk that much.  
 

I can see the ongoing real life cost in having to endure harassment and assault in women’s lives.  I have yet to see actual costs to men documented as opposed to possible costs speculated about.  There are some personal anecdotes about having to be cautious around women as if that is something novel and dangerous to one’s health (if it is so awful, then why not the outrage for women having to constantly live that experience, why not support for women trying to get out of that rather than on the potential damage to men?  Why not look for more effective ways…and show they are more effective rather than speculate about harm by one of the solutions women have come up with).

And while those possible costs may involve some questioning of self esteem, I don’t see an equivalent to the documented damage—physical and emotional—that occurs to women in the speculated potential damage to men in being told there are women who view all men as potential rapists even if the men don’t understand the intent and take it to mean the most extreme interpretation.

Edited June 25 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Women have been thinking this way since basically forever.

In one sense yes.  How much we have allowed it to affect our behaviour outside of possibly making us even more passive and likely to freeze in difficult situations I have my doubts.

We (women, but seriously everyone) need to be more consistent with serious and thorough thinking about what this data means and not treat it as superficial and unnecessary to dwell on in most cases as we have in the past in my experience.

It is possible that women did take it more seriously in the past when the law and culture’s punishment for a rapist was often to marry his victim, giving him 24/7 access to her or ruin the woman for life while scolding the man (unless an marginalized minority) and it is only in the past one or two centuries where life had become safer and more stable in our culture at least as a whole that women here got out of the habit, but certainly my grandmother, mother’s and my generation set us up to ignore caution in favour of being social and accepted by males.  I would love to see research on that.

Edited June 25 by Calm

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

In one sense yes.  How much we have allowed it to affect our behaviour outside of possibly making us even more passive and likely to freeze in difficult situations I have my doubts.

Yeah, I know and it is not fair.

And also why the “flight or fight” thing has been replaced by the “flight, fight, freeze, or fawn” as responses sometimes with “fine” added in as a coping mechanism after the fact.

[manol]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

This whole conversation is reminding me why I have moved to pushing to allow use of very assertive, even aggressive language in limited contexts when it comes to women’s concerns. 

I also think this is the only context in which I've used very assertive, even aggressive language in a while.  I think there's a time and place for it, though I say that while recognizing that my judgment in this area is not the best. 

But to me the hurt feelings of men over the wording used (and @Calm has articulated why the language needs to be attention-grabbing) utterly pales in comparison with the very real possibility of being sexually assaulted that is an unspoken part of the lives of women and girls.  Women in this thread have "said the quiet part out loud", the part we men pretty much never even think about.  

My link-embedding skills having apparently failed me, here's Calm's post I just referred to:  https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113398-troubling-allegations-against-former-sheriff-in-pinal-county-az-church-mbr/page/12/#findComment-1210272474

And anyone who hasn't yet, please read @Doctor Steuss's post, here:  https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113398-troubling-allegations-against-former-sheriff-in-pinal-county-az-church-mbr/page/12/#findComment-1210272479

Let us be men of empathy, as you will see exemplified in the good Doctor's post linked above. 

 

Edited June 25 by manol

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

providing the alternative yourself can always be helpful) -

So helpful to those who freeze when the spotlight shines even when prepared.

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

This whole conversation is reminding me why I have moved to pushing to allow use of very assertive, even aggressive language in limited contexts when it comes to women’s concerns.  

This conversation is reminding me of the "Habits of a Peacemaker" book.  I have worked to modulate my statements and interactions, and while I have some success in that (I am hoping my commentary has been less acerbic and pointed than in the past), "Habit Ten" ("Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure") seems to be coming into sharp contrast.

Consequently, I propose that we shut down our interaction.  I'll leave the last word to you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

When I first encountered the “yes, all men” statement online, about 16 years ago (I think[?]), I admittedly made it all about me, rather than the people who have been conditioned through real-life experiences to have to live with that level of anxiety and threat assessment.  Rather than trying to understand the world that most women experience, I felt the compulsion to push back, because if I wasn’t that type of person, and my dad isn’t, and my brothers aren’t, and so on… then obviously it isn’t “all men.”  Now, I try to do my best in situations where I’m a “stranger” to lessen potential anxiety.  I know I’m not a threat, but I also recognize that others don’t know that.  Sometimes there's a level of hurt, when I find out someone thought I was mean, or racist, or violent, or a douchebag because of my appearance, but I also know what I look like to a lot of people and that there wasn't intentional malice in their subconscious real-time threat assessment of me.

While I know that I’m not a predator, I also know that I am physically intimidating, and  that men and women generally view me as potentially threatening if they don’t know me.  I make modest adjustments to my behavior, when possible to help with that.

I think one thing that may help in this conversation is simply remembering that women are people.  They aren’t some mysterious “other,” or monolith.  From that starting point, one need only put yourself into another person’s shoes.  Not into a woman’s shoes… just another human being’s shoes.

Some self-reporting data from college attending men indicates that as high as 60% of men have engaged in sexual harassment, coercion, intimidation, and assault.  Those same self-reporting studies have found as many as 16% of men have committed legally-defined rape.  The few behavioral studies generally put it at around 25% of men who have committed some form of sexual assault.  Those are the high-end numbers (other self-reporting studies have found lower numbers), but the fact that this is self-reported data (at least with the first two -- the other is a bit more complicated) I think speaks volumes.  Also, most of this is college aged men.  Men that haven’t even lived a quarter of their lives, already self-reporting that high of a rate.

If you’re in a room with 10 men, there’s a likelihood (at least from the available research) that at least 2 of them have sexually assaulted a woman.  Potentially half of the men in that room have used coercion, intimidation, or refused to accept that “no” is a complete sentence, at some point in their lives.  That’s difficult to fathom, unless you’ve been one of the people who have experienced it first-hand.

I’m not sure what empathetic thought experiment can work best for every person.  I know a lot of men have difficulty putting themselves into a frame of mind where the potential of being a victim of rape is tangible in any meaningful way.  It can be just too much of a foreign concept.  Perhaps thinking of it as, if half of men had a tendency to just punch other dudes in the special-no-no-place, would it have absolutely no impact on how you viewed the world?  Say you were fortunate and had never been punched, but you had multiple friends who had… wouldn’t that change your worldview in some way?  Would you in no way start assuming that ever man you encountered had that potential, and you had to wait and see if they didn’t (all the while, anxiously waiting for that statistical roll of the dice)?

Anecdotally (and trigger warning), an ex of mine was once raped by a family friend.  She had known him for 30 years.  Their families regularly did things together, and the kids all referred to each other as cousins, and their relationships matched that familial label.  For 30 years she had shared life experiences with this “cousin.”  For 30 years he had hung out with her friends (I met him multiple times, and he always seemed like a great guy).  For 30 years their families spent important moments together.  Then, one day, she woke up with a knife to her throat, and he proceeded to rape her.  Another friend of mine was serially raped by her two brothers for almost a decade.  Her mom and others just assumed she was “slow” because she never spoke.  The brothers both went on missions, and were seen as regular up-standing LDS boys (one is now dead, and the other is serving two consecutive prison sentences for rape).  There aren’t always warning signs.  There isn’t some blinking light of “I’m potentially going to rape you.”  To the women who have experienced it, particularly from someone who had always been “safe” -- to those women, it is potentially “all men.”

So, is it mildly inconvenient for me to alter how I conduct myself in public and private?  Meh, not really.  Maybe at first, trying to remember to do the little things, but now it’s second nature.  Asking a woman that I’m on a date with, if it’s ok that I just put my arm around them, or asking at the end of a date if it’s ok if I kiss them on the cheek or if just a fist-bump would be more comfortable (providing the alternative yourself can always be helpful) -- it just becomes second nature.  Being aware of my surroundings and how others perceive me is far less tedious than the hyper-awareness a lot of women have to bear.  Gradually too, treating women like fully self-actualized individual people tends to make them see you the same way.  Creates great opportunities for friendships, and to be the person they feel comfortable telling their traumas to.  Of course, I know that we’re all built different.  Some women can’t have male friends, because if there’s any level of attraction, there’s too much of an urge to jump bones.  Similarly there are men that can’t too.  Because (*drum roll*), just like men, women are people.

Not sure if this adds anything of value, or if it's just everyone circling their respective wagons at this point, but hopefully it wasn't just a waste of bandwidth (and needlessly abusing the keyboard with my sausage fingers).

This is oddly so very comforting. I say oddly, not because you said something odd, but because what I am dealing with currently is so totally unrelated and yet your post has brought comfort to me because you took the time to truly understand. Today, apparently, I just needed someone to focus on my needs without focussing on my most difficult things going on. I can't tell you how grateful I am. 

[manol]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

... having their masculinity questioned if they choose to voice their thoughts (see Manol's various posts)...

You're right.  That was uncalled for, disrespectful, and demeaning on my part.  Thank you for calling me out on it.

I apologize to you and to @Danzo for that, and for choosing to see you both through a lens of separation that made using disrespectful language seem "okay". 

 

Edited June 26 by manol

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, manol said:

I also think this is the only context in which I've used very assertive, even aggressive language in a while.  I think there's a time and place for it, though I say that while recognizing that my judgment in this area is not the best. 

But to me the hurt feelings of men over the wording used (and @Calm has articulated why the language needs to be attention-grabbing) utterly pales in comparison with the very real possibility of being sexually assaulted that is an unspoken part of the lives of women and girls.  Women in this thread have "said the quiet part out loud", the part we men pretty much never even think about.  

I don’t know of any method of communication that works. Take the bit about it coming from God and the Spirt of the Lord out and this scripture seems to sum it up:

Moroni 9:4 Behold, I am laboring with them continually; and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it; wherefore, I fear lest the Spirit of the Lord hath ceased striving with them.

You see similar problems in attempts to address racial inequality and even things like wealth inequality. It makes a lot of people get awkward and deeply weird. Most slip into being defenders of the status quo while professing a vague desire for things to get better. You get a similar reaction in a lot of discussions about religion and politics where people who seem rational (and are) in other areas of discussion will hold up the flimsiest of evidence or even just an evasion and think the matter is settled. Or, as Calm said, they start softpedaling and trying to moderate to some vague middle ground that may or may not even exist.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, manol said:

You're right.  That was uncalled for, disrespectful, and demeaning on my part.  Thank you for calling me out on it.

I apologize to you and to @Danzo for that, and for choosing to see you both through a lens of separation that made using disrespectful language seem "okay". 

 

1. I value the assertiveness and even the fighting words because to be so utterly dismissed around such a real daily topic felt so demeaning and to be defended is so unusual and felt like a cold drink of water on a hot day. 

( I get that some who have spoken up and other who haven’t also felt demeaned by the inner dialogue some women have that “I need to be careful in the presence of any unvetted, and unfortunately at times vetted man because terrible things happen, and those terrible things include rape thus any man TO ME could be potential rapist for all I know) 

2.  I respect the apology.  ALL conflicts (and I see this thread as a conflict) are dynamically driven. Meaning, everyone plays a problematic part.  
 

Very little accountability , including from me, on this thread., Manols accountability just makes him even more likeable and safe to me.  Note that accountability, though it can feel scary, is less costly than we anticipate.  
 

Smac when you have occasionally noted your reactivity and overly dramatic responses I have noted that as well.  I have noticed your new book being helpful, though it was juxtaposed by other challenges and seemed to cancel out your efforts on this thread IMO.  I don’t feel more connected to you after this thread, and I admit I’m sure you don’t feel connected to me either.  I’m afraid my at least monthly experience of boundary crossing from gross or inappropriate men will not allow me to backpedal my big protection plan for life, and I’m not going to lie here and pretend I dont move through the world in a way that requires me to be extremely cautious with every male stranger in the world. And to be mildly cautious with all the rest, particularly in certain circumstances. No exception. Except, like I said, with my brothers and my sons. 
 

Im sad it’s that way, for all of us. The world is still somehow a beautiful place- but trust that my experience in the world is vastly different than that of just about any man. 

 

 

 

[manol]

25 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I value the assertiveness and even the fighting words because to be so utterly dismissed around such a real daily topic felt so demeaning and to be defended is so unusual and felt like a cold drink of water on a hot day.

Thank you.  I could have, and should have, done so without indulging in an unnecessary and demeaning personal attack.  I should have listened to my own advice and "put myself in the other person's shoes" to the extent that I could, despite our disagreement. 

Edited June 26 by manol

[manol]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t know of any method of communication that works. Take the bit about it coming from God and the Spirt of the Lord out and this scripture seems to sum it up:

Moroni 9:4 Behold, I am laboring with them continually; and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it; wherefore, I fear lest the Spirit of the Lord hath ceased striving with them.

You see similar problems in attempts to address racial inequality and even things like wealth inequality. It makes a lot of people get awkward and deeply weird. Most slip into being defenders of the status quo while professing a vague desire for things to get better. You get a similar reaction in a lot of discussions about religion and politics where people who seem rational (and are) in other areas of discussion will hold up the flimsiest of evidence or even just an evasion and think the matter is settled. Or, as Calm said, they start softpedaling and trying to moderate to some vague middle ground that may or may not even exist.

Well put, thanks.  Communicating well in a thread like this is a skill-set I lack.  

I do however retain my ability to forego learning things the easy way so that I can learn them the hard way.  One downside of tossing in a gratuitous insult like I did is that it's a majpr distraction from the real issue.  It invites the other person to engage on that level and reply in kind.  A tip of my virtual hat to @Danzo and @smac97 for not doing so. 

I still disagree with them, but credit where credit's due. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, manol said:

Well put, thanks.  Communicating well in a thread like this is a skill-set I lack.  

I do however retain my ability to forego learning things the easy way so that I can learn them the hard way.  One downside of tossing in a gratuitous insult like I did is that it's a majpr distraction from the real issue.  It invites the other person to engage on that level and reply in kind.  A tip of my virtual hat to @Danzo and @smac97 for not doing so. 

I still disagree with them, but credit where credit's due. 

One thing I am proud of is that I have never engaged in throwing around gratuitous insults.

Never.

Ever.

Never.

No,

Okay, a bit.

Just a little bit.

A few times.

Sometimes.

Occasionally.

Only when I thought it was funny.

Which is a lot of the time.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, manol said:

You're right.  That was uncalled for, disrespectful, and demeaning on my part.  Thank you for calling me out on it.

I apologize to you and to @Danzo for that, and for choosing to see you both through a lens of separation that made using disrespectful language seem "okay". 

 

I may disagree with your own perception of your comments.  

I find it respectful to believe someone can change and therefore be willing to take the risk of calling them out to correct them.  I assume that is why you posted given your usual posting rather than to just upset him.  

Edited June 26 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, manol said:

.  A tip of my virtual hat to @Danzo and @smac97 for not doing so. 

Going repetitively to “ugly” to attack my personal language choice rather than just keeping it at “wrong” or “inflammatory” seems like a gratuitous insult to me. 

Edited June 26 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

 

5 hours ago, manol said:

A tip of my virtual hat to @Danzo and @smac97 for not doing so. 

Prudential caution being labeled as “prejudice” is, it seems to me, intended to upset. (Ineffective, but noted, because it’s such a strange false equivalence for a reasonable person to stoop to) 

“You’re prejudiced” is a character attack. This sentiment was asserted several times, not directly to me but passive aggressively (thereby conveniently deniable.)

 Insult is intended in that.  

[manol]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Going repetitively to “ugly” to attack my personal language choice rather than just keeping it at “wrong” or “inflammatory” seems like a gratuitous insult to me. 

 

23 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Prudential caution being labeled as “prejudice” is, it seems to me, intended to upset.

 

I was referring to them not replying to me personally along the same lines as my inflammatory "man up" comment to them.   

Edited June 26 by manol

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, manol said:

 

 

I was referring to them not replying to me personally along the same lines as my inflammatory "man up" comment to them.   

Got it.   

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, manol said:

 

 

I was referring to them not replying to me personally along the same lines as my inflammatory "man up" comment to them.   

Ah.  
Indeed.  They both were respectful and yet firm in their replies to you.  Youve earned that respect in your consistent presentation. 

[Danzo]

On 6/22/2026 at 11:16 PM, Calm said:

This is how I am reading the thread.  Feel free to correct any misinterpretations I might have, but please consider why I might have that misinterpretation given I believe everyone participating here sincerely abhors violence against women and wants to prevent it.

 

I see Smac and Danzo essentially wanting women (and others) not to judge men as unsafe until they have seen unsafe behavior from them.

Myself and I believe several others are wanting women and others not to judge men as safe until it’s more likely than just statistical probability.

Both of us are asking judgement to not be made prematurely. 
 

It does seem to me though that Smac and Danzo are assuming the only way to not judge a man as unsafe is to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is safe rather than to just withhold any judgment….because otherwise I don’t see why they are so offended by my stance that caution should be the first response, that we teach awareness there may be danger (not that there is), the person may be a predator (not that they are) as an initial response. 
 

In no way have I ever suggested women should treat all men as rapists prior to actual knowledge.  I have been saying don’t give the benefit of the doubt, don’t trust until there are signs to trust.  Do not make unfounded assumptions based on hopes and a desire to see everyone as good.  That in no way means we should be seeing people as bad.  That does not mean withhold respect or courtesy.  That only means no labels of good or bad until there are solid reasons to label.

There is a middle ground between trust and mistrust that is neither of the two, but a wait and see approach.  That is what I want taught to women as the starting point.  

Sorry for the delay in my response, I've been busy, and my comments were being taken in a way that I felt was unproductive.

I am not in any way offended by the the Idea that you or anyone else thinks I am a possible rapist,  you have to live in the world as you know it and I understand why many feel the need for caution.

I just wanted to throw in a few thoughts on how the worldview of "every man is a possible rapist" might not be the best world view, and there might be better world views out there.  The idea that "every man is a possible rapist" isn't necessary a wrong idea (anyone is pretty much possibly anything).  It is that the worldview itself might not be the best one to have or promote.   

In expressing the reasons for these thoughts, I am only trying to offer different points of view, not attack anyone, or accuse them of being immoral, irrational or anything negative.   Unfortunately, my thoughts seemed to have put a label on my of being on an opposition team, and my own possible motive and character  seem to be more important to people than my thoughts. 

Due to the charged nature of this discussion, I don't think it is very likely that this is the proper forum for offering these thoughts, any further discussion seems likely to fuel contention and bad feelings.   There is much to fear in this world and I applaud your efforts and  desires for personal safety, and I hope your fears always prove unfounded. 

 

 

Edited June 26 by Danzo

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Sorry for the delay in my response, I've been busy, and my comments were being taken in a way that I felt was unproductive.

I am not in any way offended by the the Idea that you or anyone else thinks I am a possible rapist,  you have to live in the world as you know it and I understand why many feel the need for caution.

I just wanted to throw in a few thoughts on how the worldview of "every man is a possible rapist" might not be the best world view, and there might be better world views out there.  The idea that "every man is a possible rapist" isn't necessary a wrong idea (anyone is pretty much possibly anything).  It is that the worldview itself might not be the best one to have or promote.   

In expressing the reasons for these thoughts, I am only trying to offer different points of view, not attack anyone, or accuse them of being immoral, irrational or anything negative.   Unfortunately, my thoughts seemed to have put a label on my of being on an opposition team, and my own possible motive and character  seem to be more important to people than my thoughts. 

Due to the charged nature of this discussion, I don't think it is very likely that this is the proper forum for offering these thoughts, any further discussion seems likely to fuel contention and bad feelings.   There is much to fear in this world and I applaud your efforts and  desires for personal safety, and I hope your fears always prove unfounded. 

 

 

I don’t have the least problem with the way you have presented your thoughts above in this post (have to review your other posts to see what troubled me before).  You leave room for this approach that I and some others have adopted to be valid, non prejudicial etc, appropriate, and even potentially the best in terms of mental health though you express doubt about the last.  In the absence of actual documentation of research comparing various approaches and their value, I see that as a sensible and valid position.

Edited June 26 by Calm

[Calm]

Just found out the daughter of a good friend of my husband’s, one of the neighbors on our street, was murdered last year by a serial killer.  She left two children now living with their grandmother.  Our friend just got back from burying her last  week as it took some time to find her, my husband found this out when he picked him up  at the airport. The predator is in prison for another murder.  I don’t know if they  are prosecuting him for this one (maybe they located her body and others through a plea deal). 

Her funeral was followed by another one as our friend had a stroke and died a few days after he got home.  His was this morning.  Think he was in his fifties, hard to tell, could have been late 40s.  His health wasn’t great after a hard life (been in the  military and gotten really messed up, had turned his life around and then got hit with cancer, fought that and won not long ago, but this last was likely too much).

Violence and tragedy is never very far away.

 

Edited June 28 by Calm

[Danzo]

On 6/27/2026 at 6:03 PM, Calm said:

Just found out the daughter of a good friend of my husband’s, one of the neighbors on our street, was murdered last year by a serial killer.  She left two children now living with their grandmother.  Our friend just got back from burying her last  week as it took some time to find her, my husband found this out when he picked him up  at the airport. The predator is in prison for another murder.  I don’t know if they  are prosecuting him for this one (maybe they located her body and others through a plea deal). 

Her funeral was followed by another one as our friend had a stroke and died a few days after he got home.  His was this morning.  Think he was in his fifties, hard to tell, could have been late 40s.  His health wasn’t great after a hard life (been in the  military and gotten really messed up, had turned his life around and then got hit with cancer, fought that and won not long ago, but this last was likely too much).

Violence and tragedy is never very far away.

 

Really sorry to hear that.

[MustardSeed]

 

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

 

 

This.