There was a second woman, and the church knew

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don’t want to shame the entire church, I want the issue to be addressed by the entire church, and that should be led by the Prophet.  Do you disagree?

Let’s review the people who are alleged to have been involved in this:

* Multiple local leaders over decades 

* Carlos Asay

* Robert Wells

* The president of the MTC

We’ve got men across varying levels of leadership.  It’s a systemic issue.  You say that the church is now putting procedures in place.  Where is your evidence of that?  As of March 19th they were still hiding everything.  It took MormonLeaks for us to even be aware. 

Please give us the details of their involvement besides allegedly  being informed of the situation.  Give us the specific documented details of how they responded.

Obviously the perpetrator is the president of the MTC,  and does not represent the church in this situation.  He does not represent "the entire church", but an outlier.   I find it interesting that you pretend that his actions represents the church itself.

The leaders were using their best judgement in how to handle this very unusual situation and were unlikely to have ever faced something like this before.  The story did not sound credible -- especially the basement room full of pornography in the MTC.

Do let's review YOUR attitude towards the church and your deliberate lack of insight over such a incident.  Are you making a stealth accusation that the church deliberately knew what was happening and white washed i?  Where they deliberately ignoring a credible complaint about a church leader, despite their experiencing dozens of similar events.

 

I think you should look deep inside and look at YOURattitude towards this church.

Edited March 24, 2018 by cdowis

[jpv]

20 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am not a parody troll, I am a Mormon Christian. I am not ashamed to call myself a Christian. For the world my words are foolishness, but Christ taught us to love those that persecute us (Matthew 5).  I am glad you see the light brother jpv.

As am I--I apologize for misjudging you.

[Brian 2.0]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can appreciate that your answer to that question is “absolutely not.”  Other people see it differently, and are judging the church using different metrics.

Going forward, the church needs to fix the issue that allowed this to happen so it can’t happen again.  I don’t personally believe the church was negligent for not having such protocols and rules in place to before the fact.  Naive yes, but not negligent in my opinion. 

I think most of the problems in this issue come from too heavy a reliance on the idea that evil or messed up men cannot be called to high positions of authority.  It’ll be good for us to get away from that myth. 

You can apologize for being naive as an institution and say we won’t be in the future. Still don’t see how an apology isn’t in order.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Brian 2.0

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

He should have been the first person to speak out..loud and clear.

 Someone who sees the world with 20/20 hindsight and therefore has all the answers.

Edited March 24, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Has it though? What is the procedure for a young women who is asked about her masturbation habit in graphic detail in a bishops interview? How does she know what the procedure is? Who investigates? 

Sounds like a SP who should proactively give his new bishop training on how to deal with such sensitive matters.  And if it does happen, the SP should be informed  (by the parents) so that he can give counsel to the bishop.  That is how the church works.

What should NOT happen is for the parents to directly confront the Bishop, record their conversation and upload it to youtube.

Edited March 24, 2018 by cdowis

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

You can apologize for being naive as an institution and say we won’t be in the future. Still don’t see how an apology isn’t in order.

From a practical standpoint, I don’t really see the point in that. What does “I’m sorry we didn’t know what we didn’t know. We know it now so we can do better” really accomplish?

But, such an apology might still be coming and if it does come, then that’s great too. 

Sometimes using an apology to acknowledge that you are sorry for someone’s pain, and for mistakes made (even if they were reasonable mistakes at the time) is a valid and helpful act.

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Please give us the details of their involvement besides allegedly  being informed of the situation.  Give us the specific documented details of how they responded.

Obviously the perpetrator is the president of the MTC,  and does not represent the church in this situation.  He does not represent "the entire church", but an outlier.   I find it interesting that you pretend that his actions represents the church itself. and I am quickly losing interest in talking with you.

The leaders were using their best judgement in how to handle this very unusual situation and were unlikely to have eve faced something like this before.  The story did not sound credible -- especially the basement room full of pornography in the MTC.

Do let's review YOUR attitude towards the church and your deliberate lack of insight over such a incident.  Are you making a stealth accusation that the church deliberately knew what was happening and white washed i?  Where they deliberately ignoring a credible complaint about a church leader, despite their experiencing dozens of similar events.

 

I think you should look deep inside and look at YOURattitude towards this church.

I think you should re-read what I wrote. 

I did not say that Bishop, as MTC President represented the church.  He is one member who happened to be in a leadership position. 

Like you, I would assume that the leaders who were involved in this were using their best judgment.  

What I see are issues that need to be addressed systemically to do all we can to prevent similar problems and better protect victims. 

As for this particular issue being hidden... based on the latest statement from the woman (posted earlier in this thread) it sounds like she was offered hush money. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by rockpond

[drums12]

43 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Were they acting as individuals or separate entities when they issued the policy turned revelation on the children of married gay people?

Ummm I assume one or more individuals had the idea (whether inspired or not is a matter of faith), then it was discussed with more individuals, and finally agreed upon by 15 (assuming all were present) individuals.

[Brian 2.0]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From a practical standpoint, I don’t really see the point in that. What does “I’m sorry we didn’t know what we didn’t know. We know it now so we can do better” really accomplish?

But, such an apology might still be coming and if it does come, then that’s great too. 

Sometimes using an apology to acknowledge that you are sorry for someone’s pain, and for mistakes made (even if they were reasonable mistakes at the time) is a valid and helpful act.

You don’t see the point?

the church is run by local leaders and volunteers. A breakdown happened at that level. We don’t want it to happen again. You don’t see the benefit of the top brass saying to the world, which is obviously also to the local church members at the same time, “We screwed up. We’re sorry We can do better. We will do better.” You dont see the practical point of that?

the ward and stake leadership level of th church screwed up. That should mean “the church” as a whole screwed up. Why is there some line of responsibility beteeen local and Salt Lake. I honestly don’t get it. Are we not one church? Should not that church apologize for grave errors that happened at a local level?

 

It’s like we’ve entered some era of the church where we have a ruling class and a commoners class and neither side wants to own up to the actions of the other.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Brian 2.0

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Good quote mcjathan!

DBMormon is a member of this board and quoted this on FB for everyone to share.

"I can't emphasize this enough. Please take 30 seconds to understand this conundrum.

The LDS Church after learning of this audio felt it important to initiate legislation that prevented in Utah the sharing of such Audio where only one person knew a conversation was being recorded. They were informed of and listened to this audio only days or at most weeks before they felt suddenly there was a need in Utah for a change in the law. In the meantime, The LDS Church also knew there was a second allegation by a second woman against Bishop. In the meantime this man continued to be allowed to hold callings where he could be around and interact with youth.

When the Audio became public, the Church knew behind the scenes there had been a second woman who had come to them with allegations against Bishop, and yet avoided acknowledging such, and instead chose to use language that deflected or dismissed the Woman's claims.

Only when audio, that the Church initiated legislation to prevent from coming out, surfaced did the Church remove his books from Deseret Book. And only when Public Opinion seem to sway as the evidence mounted did the Church admit there was another woman with "non-recent" allegations against Bishop and did the Church back away from rhetoric that seemed to victim blame and take the matter seriously (at least in their words)

My Questions to be honored

1.) Was the other woman given Hush money and did she sign a NDA?

2.) Does the Church now admit that allowing such audio to come public is a positive thing if the priority is to protect the abused?

3.) Is the Church willing to admit it has unique mechanisms that contribute to a unhealthy space for abuse?

4.) Will the Church going forward support the right of a one party state in regards to audio recordings in an effort to protect victims of abuse?

5.) Can the LDS Church and its leaders acknowledge that Sam Young and others are asking for positive healthy change in the system and that God inspired leaders can be deeply wrong and behind the world when it comes to social changes like this?

Can I ask folks to share this and to pose this in its entirety to friends and family and ask that your questions be honored.

I am hoping that namely the Church will address this in the coming days (though I highly doubt they will ), defenders of Mormonism as God's one true Church might be vulnerable enough to weigh in (Though I highly doubt they will) and that others with nuanced beliefs might take a stab at these questions where they have an opinion of knowledge."

Resources:

https://www.sltrib.com/…/mormon-church-interested-in-bill-…/

http://www.foxnews.com/…/2nd-alleged-sexual-assault-victim-…

http://kutv.com/…/former-employee-confirms-odd-mtc-room-wit…

https://mormonleaks.io/…/mormonleaks-releases-of-former-mo…/

Me: I believe he's right, even though he isn't well received here I'm posting because he makes a good point. Rather than the church trying to squelch recordings why not accept that it very well can help convict abusers. But no, the church comes out with wanting a law changed to not allow these recordings right after receiving the recording in January, coincidence?  http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-supporters-and-other-object-bill-for-secret-recording-ban

"Church representatives have spoken with legislators to express support for House Bill 330, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of sensitive private conversations including those between ecclesiastical leaders and their members," Eric Hawkins, LDS Church spokesman, said. "In other states, business, legal, religious and law enforcement organizations have supported similar laws to safeguard confidential conversations for the same reasons."

I think Smac spoke to that earlier, if it had passed it wasn't retroactive and wouldn't take affect until May or something. Where does he get the idea there was a NDA agreement?

Edited March 24, 2018 by Duncan

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 Someone who sees the world with 20/20 hindsight and therefore has all the answers.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

And so..the church took a lesson from this.

Maybe the church was a bad player in wanting this law somehow...but it still doesn't negate the other states that have it, including one of the most liberal...CA. Until I hear this state berated I continue to roll my eyes over this doomsday reaction to a bill that actually did allow for the recording of abuse, and does protect ordinary people along with "the church." I'm not too keen on my private words being broadcast to the world and it has nothing to do with being guilty of something. 

[cdowis]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think you should re-read what I wrote. 

OK, I see that I misjudged the point of your post.

What I see are issues that need to be addressed systemically to do all we can to prevent similar problems and better protect victims. 

The church has developed resources and and procedures to do that. 

As for this particular issue being hidden... based on the latest statement from the woman (posted earlier in this thread) it sounds like she was offered hush money. 

 As you know, it is easy to make such an accusation to include and strengthen a lawsuit against the church itself.  You go after Deep Pockets.

 

[cdowis]

del

Edited March 24, 2018 by cdowis

[juliann]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

That understanding aside, the culture has shifted but the church seems to be committed to living with 1984 style excuses. It's bad enough that this horrible thing happened in the 80's and that no one believed her in the 90's or the 2000's but here we are in 2018 with a lot of cultural evolution under our collective belts. The culture of the church leadership, including proscribed policies and procedures need to be updated.  

This is a good way of describing the dilemma. When I have talked to PA people in SLC, I have found them to be very, very aware. Yet I get the feeling that there must always be the appeasement of members such as those that display themselves online. No amount of reason will convince them that their chilling ideas that women victims are expendable if a man "has the priesthood" and an impressive calling/job is no longer acceptable. But I do think most can be educated and are worth being worked with. That puts the church in an untenable position, do they slam the doors on these people? I don't know the answer. I only know that I am sick to death of dealing with men who cannot discuss even one incident without defending the male at the expense of his victim.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

I’m not sure what the resources are that the church has developed to deal with this.  I was a counselor in a Bishopric from 2012 thorough 2016 and never received any training or resources on this matter. 

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

You don’t see the point?

the church is run by local leaders and volunteers. A breakdown happened at that level. We don’t want it to happen again. You don’t see the benefit of the top brass saying to the world, which is obviously also to the local church members at the same time, “We screwed up. We’re sorry We can do better. We will do better.” You dont see the practical point of that?

the ward and stake leadership level of th church screwed up. That should mean “the church” as a whole screwed up. Why is there some line of responsibility beteeen local and Salt Lake. I honestly don’t get it. Are we not one church? Should not that church apologize for grave errors that happened at a local level?

 

It’s like we’ve entered some era of the church where we have a ruling class and a commoners class and neither side wants to own up to the actions of the other.

No, from a practical standpoint I don’t see the point of saying “I’m sorry we didn’t know what we didn’t know.”

I see the value of regret for wrongdoing. I see much value in regret for being human and therefore imperfect. 

But like I’ve said before, I’m a pragmatic person by nature. 

[juliann]

25 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

You don’t see the point?

the church is run by local leaders and volunteers. A breakdown happened at that level. We don’t want it to happen again. You don’t see the benefit of the top brass saying to the world, which is obviously also to the local church members at the same time, “We screwed up. We’re sorry We can do better. We will do better.” You dont see the practical point of that?

the ward and stake leadership level of th church screwed up. That should mean “the church” as a whole screwed up. Why is there some line of responsibility beteeen local and Salt Lake. I honestly don’t get it. Are we not one church? Should not that church apologize for grave errors that happened at a local level?

 

It’s like we’ve entered some era of the church where we have a ruling class and a commoners class and neither side wants to own up to the actions of the other.

It goes back to trust. The lack of trust is what is going to do the most damage (and is.) An admission/apology/whatever is the first step to rebuilding trust. It can't be ignored without the consequences we are beginning to see. 

I had lunch with a longtime friend, a never married older woman. I had always seen her as the most committed of members. This story opened a door and she felt comfortable enough to tell me that the church has no place for single women and how close she was to becoming inactive despite her belief. The most painful thing was her saying she had never told anyone, she thought she was the only one. She had lost trust in a leadership that did not value her with its actions. 

[juliann]

9 hours ago, Brian 2.0 said:

I'm not saying they're noble. But I am saying their nobility or lack thereof doesn't change confirmed and admitted facts revealed by such "trouble makers".

The victim has released a statement saying that the Mormonleaks leak did not damage her and probably helped. I still find what they did without getting the permission of a woman victim is disgusting.

[Brian 2.0]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, from a practical standpoint I don’t see the point of saying “I’m sorry we didn’t know what we didn’t know.”

I see the value of regret for wrongdoing. I see much value in regret for being human and therefore imperfect. 

But like I’ve said before, I’m a pragmatic person by nature. 

The point I’m arguing is the quote you are using. “We didn’t know”. That means you are speaking about the COB or “the brethren” or whatever. I don’t know where you are drawing the line, but “church leaders” did know, multiple times. 

So an apology from the church as as institution is what I’m talking about. That would NOT be “we sorry we didn’t know what we didn’t know”. It would be “we’re sorry. We can do better.”

Who are you referring to in your “were sorry we didn’t know what we didn’t know.”? Who’s “we”?

Can’t the brethren apologize on behalf of the church as a whole, since they are literally the only ones that can? Is that so bad?

 

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

The victim has released a statement saying that the Mormonleaks leak did not damage her and probably helped. I still find what they did without getting the permission of a woman victim is disgusting.

I totally agree with that. 

[rpn]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

The victim has released a statement saying that the Mormonleaks leak did not damage her and probably helped. I still find what they did without getting the permission of a woman victim is disgusting.

And as paternalistic as what they decry in the mormon church.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Were they acting as individuals or separate entities when they issued the policy turned revelation on the children of married gay people?

They were acting as men mostly over 85 years which some think that because of their age there is a good chance they might not be responsible for all of what they say. But if you like what they say, then the suggestion of demention is insulting. 

Those who were pushing the demention issue because  the most are the same ones who believe these 85 plus aged men are always fully competent and know the will of God  in all things  

You can’t have it both ways and have any credibility 

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

They were acting as men mostly over 85 years which some think that because of their age there is a good chance they might not be responsible for all of what they say. But if you like what they say, then the suggestion of demention is insulting. 

Those who were pushing the demention issue because  the most are the same ones who believe these 85 plus aged men are always fully competent and know the will of God  in all things  

You can’t have it both ways and have any credibility 

I think that ridiculously loose lipped son made the dementia excuse harder by not leading with it. It's kind of beside the point now though other than how he will be disciplined. I have to admit I will be upset if he isn't exed. I'm not one of those who feels a need to "not judge." We have always used excommunication not only as a consequence to the individual in high profile cases, but also as a protection to the membership. So I'm not buying the God will get him in the end so don't worry stuff. 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

The point I’m arguing is the quote you are using. “We didn’t know”. That means you are speaking about the COB or “the brethren” or whatever. I don’t know where you are drawing the line, but “church leaders” did know, multiple times. 

 

I made this point earlier but I'm sorry if I wasn't clear (or maybe you missed it).  The issue 'did the church know' is only important as far as it shows whether or not the church was at fault or acted inappropriately.  If the church did not act inappropriately because the bishop in question acted reasonably and no one else in the church knew about it, then I don't see the point of the church offering an apology.  

Quote

Can’t the brethren apologize on behalf of the church as a whole, since they are literally the only ones that can? Is that so bad?

They can, and they still might.  I specifically said that in my post to you.  I also said that if they do it will be great so I'm not sure where the bolded question is coming from.

Edited March 24, 2018 by bluebell