There was a second woman, and the church knew

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don’t think they are lying.  Nothing I have written here contradicts that statement. 

Then they are not appropriating them for anything else and therefore your comment that they can use funds for anything they see that furthers the mission of the Church does not apply to all funds donated to the Church.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

From how I’ve heard it described, it was revelation to the apostles as a group. 

So the prophet no longer receives revelation for the church?  Revelation is now done by committee?

Don’t get me wrong. I am ok with that as long as the church is more honest and drops the claim that it is lead by a prophet who receives revelation from God

The claim should be a revelation is a decision everyone agrees to and feels good about. 

 Get back on topic or start a new thread.

[SteveO]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

So the prophet no longer receives revelation for the church?  Revelation is now done by committee?

Don’t get me wrong. I am ok with that as long as the church is more honest and drops the claim that it is lead by a prophet who receives revelation from God

The claim should be a revelation is a decision everyone agrees to and feels good about. 

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

So the prophet no longer receives revelation for the church?  Revelation is now done by committee?

Don’t get me wrong. I am ok with that as long as the church is more honest and drops the claim that it is lead by a prophet who receives revelation from God

The claim should be a revelation is a decision everyone agrees to and feels good about. 

 Get back on topic or start a new thread.

The apostles hold all the keys collectively and have always had the authority to receive revelation and administer the affairs of the kingdom when or if the prophet cannot. That has always been a part of the organization of the church and something that they teach in Sunday school. 

No more thread derails. 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

You don’t want to do the research for me?  It’s your claim.  I thought you must have some actual data to support it but I guess not. 

As for me, I certainly don’t believe the worst.  These are good men handling the church funds.  Good men, not perfect men.  And I am not offended and do not have any rage (nice ad hominem, by the way).

Finally, I do believe that everything the Church has is consecrated.  I don’t think anyone donated to the church and said:  “this is not tithes or offerings, I’d like you to use this for hush money to settle sexual abuse cases”. 

So they should fight every case and possibly lose more?

And all I have is something I read years ago. I cannot provide the financial records of the church for the period which is what it would take.

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Then they are not appropriating them for anything else and therefore your comment that they can use funds for anything they see that furthers the mission of the Church does not apply to all funds donated to the Church.

Your quote addressed only fast offerings and humanitarian aid, not tithes. 

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So they should fight every case and possibly lose more?

And all I have is something I read years ago. I cannot provide the financial records of the church for the period which is what it would take.

Correct, the Brethren stopped sharing financial records with the members many decades ago. 

As to whether they should fight every case is another matter.  I was responding to the issue of whether tithing funds were used in these settlements. 

[Exiled]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Correct, the Brethren stopped sharing financial records with the members many decades ago. 

As to whether they should fight every case is another matter.  I was responding to the issue of whether tithing funds were used in these settlements. 

The church should be able to defend itself but maybe shouldn't be able to hide behind NDA's? The NDA is the primary tool for silencing victims and in essence covering up the whole story in these cases. Perhaps charitable organizations shouldn't be allowed to use this device as being a violation of the public trust?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Correct, the Brethren stopped sharing financial records with the members many decades ago. 

As to whether they should fight every case is another matter.  I was responding to the issue of whether tithing funds were used in these settlements. 

If all church money is consecrated then what funds should they use?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If all church money is consecrated then what funds should they use?

If they need to settle, than yes, obviously they should use consecrated funds because that's all they've got.  Earlier in the thread someone (sorry, I can't remember if it was you or someone else) had suggested that likely "tithing funds" were not used for such settlements. 

How or if they should settle and whether NDA's should be a part of it, are interesting questions as @Exiled notes just a couple posts above.  Should our church settle a case of sexual abuse and not provide disclosure to the members?  Should the church require an NDA with the settlement, essentially making the payment "hush money"?  Is that a violation of the trust of church members or just a good legal practice?

 

[Storm Rider]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If they need to settle, than yes, obviously they should use consecrated funds because that's all they've got.  Earlier in the thread someone (sorry, I can't remember if it was you or someone else) had suggested that likely "tithing funds" were not used for such settlements. 

How or if they should settle and whether NDA's should be a part of it, are interesting questions as @Exiled notes just a couple posts above.  Should our church settle a case of sexual abuse and not provide disclosure to the members?  Should the church require an NDA with the settlement, essentially making the payment "hush money"?  Is that a violation of the trust of church members or just a good legal practice?

 

If the Church uses an NDA I would limit the amount of the settlement to remain private. That makes sense to me in this litigious world in which we live; however, I see attempting to keep the all of the other facts of a settlement NDA for wrong doing to be counter-productive. If there is wrong doing then admitting that fact is first step in repentance, which is what the Church should be doing when its leaders fail. 

[RevTestament]

On 3/23/2018 at 5:34 PM, jkwilliams said:

A friend of mine, who is an attorney, said:

John: it's not a coincidence that it was during litigation against the church in a sex abuse case when I determined the church is not true.

Unfortunately, I think the is the conclusion of many. The thinking seems to go something like this: my Church leaders are called of God through inspired men. Therefore, if what they are doing is wrong, the men who called them were wrong, and not really inspired. Therefore, the Church must be wrong. I feel this type of conclusion is a result of the modern Church's emphasis on following the prophet and church leaders. However, I believe where the rub lies is whether we should do this unquestioningly. Should we allow people to vote against confirming Church leaders? Through my wife I have heard of stories where outspoken declining of confirmation was dealt with rather intolerantly - such as an indignant approach like "how dare you speak against an inspired calling." However, there may be instances where women know certain men have sexual sins which need to be resolved. Therefore, there is this "tension" within the Church about this type of thing. I personally am not one for blind obedience, and believe leaders should be followed and confirmed in inspiration and divine personal revelation. If some people object, I believe they usually should be heard - especially in matters of sexual impropriety. Otherwise confirmation really becomes just a useless rubber stamp. Being pressured or intimidated into confirming a local leader is wrong, but I believe has happened in the Church. Finding out a man is a sinner, and maybe should not have been confirmed as a Church leader, does not make "the Church" untrue. We are all sinners who fall short of the glory of God, except for one, who leads this Church from heaven.

I personally feel it is the culture of unquestioning obedience which is not true. This really has nothing to do with "the Church" or the restored gospel. My wife finally learned that and returned to the Church despite the great pain and anger she felt. Holding the Church to the standard of this attorney is a false notion. The gospel can remain true despite the faults of those in Church callings. The Church just needs to better recognize that, and stop with the unquestioning following imho. Conclusions like the one this attorney reached is why I believe the Church should not foster the culture of unquestioning obedience. The Church should be open to letting the Holy Spirit guide. I follow and am obedient unless there is darn good reason not to be - for instance I will not apologize for my testimony. I think this issue has become more important as the United States has become more secular - I think it incumbent for the Church to realize that converts may indeed be more secularized than before. Although the Church should support its leaders, it should also not ignore reports of their faults for fear of what others may think, because that can lead to unfortunate events such as those of Joseph Bishop's tenure. When men feel they cannot be questioned, it often doesn't lead to anything good.

Edited March 25, 2018 by RevTestament

[Gray]

19 hours ago, Thinking said:

Being a fellow educator, this is my worst fear. Sometimes after school there will be just one student who comes into my room to ask questions. My door is always propped open.

About 20 years ago a local baseball coach was accused of inappropriate sexual contact with a student. He was fired. Later the student recanted  - she said she was getting back at him for a grade. The damage was done to his reputation. He won a financial settlement against the school district for terminating him before conducting a proper investigation.

Unfortunately there have been too many false accusations, which make it difficult to believe the real victims.

Our child's school has security cameras in every room, which I think protects both teachers and students. Not unlike body cams on police officers, which protect both the officers and those they interact with.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Gray

[Teancum]

On 3/24/2018 at 1:32 AM, sjdawg said:

The church newsrooms seems to also be working hard to ensure any blame gets pointed at "local leadership" only.

No surprise there.

[2PairsofCletes]

So filth is not limited to the Catholic church it seems. I really wish the leadership of any Christian denomination would care less about public image and protecting abusers and do more to protect the members. ABUSE is abhorrent, and the authorities should act quickly and with transparency as long as victims don't mind. This is really just disgusting. We HAVE to do better

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

If the Church uses an NDA I would limit the amount of the settlement to remain private. That makes sense to me in this litigious world in which we live; however, I see attempting to keep the all of the other facts of a settlement NDA for wrong doing to be counter-productive. If there is wrong doing then admitting that fact is first step in repentance, which is what the Church should be doing when its leaders fail. 

I agree.  Good approach.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If all church money is consecrated then what funds should they use?

Remember how they got some donations specifically to buy the Book of Mormon manuscript from the CoC?  They could solicit donations from wealthy members specifically for payouts to women (and men?) who have been abused by MTC Presidents and/or General Authorities.

Edited March 25, 2018 by cinepro

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

If they need to settle, than yes, obviously they should use consecrated funds because that's all they've got.  Earlier in the thread someone (sorry, I can't remember if it was you or someone else) had suggested that likely "tithing funds" were not used for such settlements. 

How or if they should settle and whether NDA's should be a part of it, are interesting questions as @Exiled notes just a couple posts above.  Should our church settle a case of sexual abuse and not provide disclosure to the members?  Should the church require an NDA with the settlement, essentially making the payment "hush money"?  Is that a violation of the trust of church members or just a good legal practice?

 

I can tell by the arguments about settling, fighting a case to the end and NDAs that none of you have been sued or otherwise seriously entangled by the US “justice “ system.  

At this point none of us have all the facts of the case, nor are we likely to, ever.  This is true even if there were to be a trial. Because evidence can be excluded for various reasons.  To the detriment of both parties. 

 

The above being  the case , NDAs serve a useful purpose in that the case cannot be relitigated in public by either party, thus possibly distorting facts and hence conclusions. 

I have been sued (better said my company, but I was also named) more than once, each time I was in the right IMHO.  None of the cases saw court. For varying reasons they were all settled with NDAs, primarily to protect my company’s interests. I didn’t want people bad mouthing me or the company I work for. IMHO, had any of these plaintiffs had a real case, they would have gone to court on principle.  But they just wanted money.  

Even if this is not the case, and a defendant such as a church or business, is guilty of an offense, of course they would want their reputation preserved to the extent possible. In some cases, this is impossible. Witness the Weinstein company’s demise. 

In the instant case, the Church had little to do with the offense initially, but it has deep pockets. Of course a good lawyer can make it seem like everyone in authority knew about the secret “tryst “ room!

Edited March 25, 2018 by mrmarklin
More info.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

I can tell by the arguments about settling, fighting a case to the end and NDAs that none of you have been sued or otherwise seriously entangled by the US “justice “ system.  At this point none of us have all the facts of the case, nor are we likely to, ever.  This is true even if there were to be a trial. Because evidence can be excluded for various reasons.  To the detriment of both parties. 

The above being  the case , NDAs serve a useful purpose in that the case cannot be relitigated in public by either party, thus possibly distorting facts and hence conclusions. I have been sued (better said my company, but I was also named) more than once, each time I was in the right IMHO.  None of the cases saw court. For varying reasons they were all settled with NDAs, primarily to protect my company’s interests. I didn’t want people bad mouthing me or the company I work for. IMHO, had any of these plaintiffs had a real case, they would have gone to court on principle.  But they just wanted money.  

Even if this is not the case, and a defendant such as a church or business, is guilty of an offense, of course they would want their reputation preserved to the extent possible. In some cases, this is impossible. Witness the Weinstein company’s demise. In the instant case, the Church had little to do with the offense initially, but it has deep pockets. Of course a good lawyer can make it seem like everyone in authority knew about the secret “tryst “ room!

I understand your position and I am able to completely empathize with your experience and actions. However, I do think there is a difference between a corporation/business and a church. The objectives and needs are different, imho.  While a corporation may demand zero transparency to the public and even its own shareholders there is a stronger preference for transparency when sinful actions are discovered within the leadership.  

I agree that members do not, and should not, know the intimate details of the personal lives and sins of those who are taken before Church Disciplinary Court.  This same confidentiality should be offered, to a degree, to its leaders.  I am torn a bit here - leaders act in public ways and their actions have far-reaching influences.  Members need to be reassured that the standards of righteousness are not only applied to members, but even more so to leaders.  

As an aside, I hate legal remedies where only financial compensation is given. There is a reason that it is called filthy lucre - I believe that as soon as money becomes a motivation for unearned gains then lucre contaminates the hearts of those involved.  I have seen it happen in my own extended family.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Your quote addressed only fast offerings and humanitarian aid, not tithes. 

I don't think you are following my reasoning, easy to get lost when it is not the main conversation; not really on topic, so let's stop.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Exiled said:

The church should be able to defend itself but maybe shouldn't be able to hide behind NDA's? The NDA is the primary tool for silencing victims and in essence covering up the whole story in these cases. Perhaps charitable organizations shouldn't be allowed to use this device as being a violation of the public trust?

Don't NDAs protect victims as well?  Some would prefer, I suspect, not having their name so out in the public.  I am not sure removing the option is wise, might lead to some people not coming forward and might make the experience more painful long term for some of those who do.  Otoh, more victims would hear about others and that would be helpful to let them know they are not alone...it doesn't seem like there is a perfect choice between requiring openness and not.

If people in a company or just the alleged predators feel the need to continue to defend themselves, they may share information that hurts the victims because they think they have been pushed too far.  Even if good people in the company are committed to not doing so, in an unexpected high pressure confrontation it might pop out.  It is harder to just speak in a limited way about something than to not say anything at all.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Our child's school has security cameras in every room, which I think protects both teachers and students. Not unlike body cams on police officers, which protect both the officers and those they interact with.

Body cams on my bishops...love the image.

[california boy]

On 3/24/2018 at 12:39 PM, cdowis said:

Perhaps, in a perfect world where everyone acts with 20/20 hindsight. But when do "multiple allegations" merely become an echo chamber of rumours involving a perfectly innocent individual.  I have personal experience with the rumour mill.

If so then there were multiple points where such a thing could have happened, should have happened, but didn’t. That is the breakdown to apologize for. 

Let's agree to disagree.  Sometimes the medicine is more deadly than the disease.  The church gave a description on what we did do.  Tell us exactly why we need to make an apology beyond giving a brief narrative of the facts.

The world is still waiting for an apology for polygamy, and blacks and the priesthood.

With this 20/20 hindsight you speak of do you think the church should be pushing legislation requiring both parties consent for any recording of conversations knowing full well that incidents like this would never come to light.  I really find this troubling for a church claiming to value truth. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Remember how they got some donations specifically to buy the Book of Mormon manuscript from the CoC?  They could solicit donations from wealthy members specifically for payouts to women (and men?) who have been abused by MTC Presidents and/or General Authorities.

Actually an open to anyone to donate "Victim Fund" for any occurrence under the 'roof of the Church' might not be a bad idea.  There are probably lots of members who are heartbroken when they hear this happens in our community and want to help with healing and donating money might be the only way they could do so.  Plus it might give members a greater sense of ownership of the problem and cause a greater vigilance and willingness to report.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

With this 20/20 hindsight you speak of do you think the church should be pushing legislation requiring both parties consent for any recording of conversations knowing full well that incidents like this would never come to light.  I really find this troubling for a church claiming to value truth. 

Why in the world do you keep pushing this when it has been made clear this law made an exception for criminal behaviour?  This is ridiculous and is looking like it is intentional deception at this point, but knowing you there is likely another reason...but I find it unlikely you have missed every response pointing out the reality of the nonapplication of the law to these types of cases.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Calm