Duncan Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, provoman said: What do you see as the responsibility of the Church in this situation you describe? What is the “something be done” that the Church should have done? um, not lying and saying he would be sent home and dealt with in a DC, if need be but then it seems they didn't and then so they actually should've sent him home. 1
Duncan Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 I have a friend who was 5 rows behind this person in the conference, I will see if I can get more info when they return from touring our neighbours in the south
mtomm Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 10 minutes ago, provoman said: What do you see as the responsibility of the Church in this situation you describe? What is the “something be done” that the Church should have done? At the very minimum sent him home from his mission so he would understand the gravity of his depravity instead of just transferring him. 3
changed Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, mtomm said: I did this (not my own assault) and was completely rebuffed by my bishop (my husband) the stake president and the grandfather of the girls who were preyed upon. The parents were assured that the missionary was being sent home and dealt with properly there. However, he was not sent home only re-assigned to a different community (my husband saw him shortly after). I happen to agree with the interrupter because of my own experience. Stop covering up for sexual predators. ETA: He was reported to the sheriff who said that no charges could/should be brought. Apparently the little girls would actually have to lift their shirts as he asked and he would have actually had to have taken a picture of them instead of just pretending to. I begged that something be done to prevent future victims. Deaf ears. I am involved in a similar story - was promised there would be a disciplinary council etc. and nothing was done. Thankfully the perpetrator was turned in by their employer and is now in jail. The guy had a long history (canceled sealing, attended LDS addiction recovery groups, etc. etc.) and still he was given leadership callings, and was working with children - I just do not understand it. Protecting confidentiality is one thing - encouraging confessions etc. I understand, but I do not think anyone who has a known history - including why their temple sealing was canceled, and attending addiction recov mtgs... sorry, but it seems like this kind of stuff does not get cured for most people - there should be strict guidelines for who is working with children etc. Edited April 3, 2018 by changed 2
mtomm Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 14 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Are you kidding me?? I would shout at the darn rooftops for such betrayal...! If this had been my family instead of just dear friends I would have been in a different position. The grandparents know the missionary was only transferred. I have not had the heart to ask them if they ever told their children the missionary was not sent home as they were told. They chose to let the matter drop for a number of reasons mostly to just to keep the girls from being further questioned. 1
Calm Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 1 minute ago, changed said: I know a similar story - was promised there would be a disciplinary council etc. and nothing was done. Thankfully the perpetrator was turned in by their employer and is now in jail. The guy had a long history (canceled sealing, attended LDS addiction recovery groups, etc. etc.) and still he was given leadership callings, and was working with children - I just do not understand it. Protecting confidentiality is one thing - encouraging confessions etc. I understand, but I do not think anyone who has a known history - including why their temple sealing was canceled, and attending addiction recov mtgs... sorry, but it seems like this kind of stuff does not get cured for most people - there should be strict guidelines for who is working with children etc. I would report this upstream to the area seventy and then General Authority over the area as I believe this is a standard policy...involved in child abuse, never allowed to work with children. Local leaders may think they know better and decide to break the rules, but SL would likely insist it be changed. You should be able to get name and contact info from a bishop or stake president. If you don't want to get it from yours, perhaps a friend who has a good relationship with their bishop can get the info from him. 1
changed Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, mtomm said: If this had been my family instead of just dear friends I would have been in a different position. The grandparents know the missionary was only transferred. I have not had the heart to ask them if they ever told their children the missionary was not sent home as they were told. They chose to let the matter drop for a number of reasons mostly to just to keep the girls from being further questioned. Same thing - when children are involved, everyone has to decide how much those poor kids have to be dragged into the limelight. ... it is horrible on the kids - I do think what those kids need most of all is to feel like people care enough about them to fight for them.
changed Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Calm said: I would report this upstream to the area seventy and then General Authority over the area as I believe this is a standard policy...involved in child abuse, never allowed to work with children. Local leaders may think they know better and decide to break the rules, but SL would likely insist it be changed. You should be able to get name and contact info from a bishop or stake president. If you don't want to get it from yours, perhaps a friend who has a good relationship with their bishop can get the info from him. The guy is now in jail for the rest of his life - it was taken care of (not by the church). The trials will go on for quite some time - years of files, lots and lots of kids - he videotaped what he did... by the end it will have made the rounds... Edited April 3, 2018 by changed
mtomm Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 14 minutes ago, Calm said: I would report this upstream to the area seventy and then General Authority over the area as I believe this is a standard policy...involved in child abuse, never allowed to work with children. Local leaders may think they know better and decide to break the rules, but SL would likely insist it be changed. You should be able to get name and contact info from a bishop or stake president. If you don't want to get it from yours, perhaps a friend who has a good relationship with their bishop can get the info from him. To have done so would have caused major discord in my own marriage. In fact, it did cause it. My husband was furious that I wasn't just accepting of the "we'll send him home" scenario and threatened to quit his bishop calling over my stubborness. I felt I did what I could to escalate it since this was not my family. Of course, in hindsight my husband also realizes the truth now. But I shouldn't have had to. This is the culture of cover-up that everyone faithful LDS insists doesn't happen. Yet this is exactly what happened. The onus shouldn't have been on me! I'm not the one guilty of "passing the trash." The parents should not have been lied to. If the culture truly is that this type of behavior is not tolerated then it would not have been tolerated. It's been 6 or 7 years now and I'm not convinced things are getting better. 4
smac97 Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 12 minutes ago, changed said: I am involved in a similar story - was promised there would be a disciplinary council etc. and nothing was done. May I ask how you know this? Disciplinary councils are kept confidential, after all. How do you know that no council was held? 12 minutes ago, changed said: Thankfully the perpetrator was turned in by their employer and is now in jail. The guy had a long history (canceled sealing, attended LDS addiction recovery groups, etc. etc.) and still he was given leadership callings, and was working with children - I just do not understand it. I don't follow. A cancelled sealing is, in your view, prima facie evidence that an individual cannot be trusted around children? As for attendance at "recovery groups," that's a pretty broad net to cast. Are you suggesting that anyone who attends such a recovery group is per se disqualified from working with children? 12 minutes ago, changed said: Protecting confidentiality is one thing - encouraging confessions etc. I understand, but I do not think anyone who has a known history "Known history" of what? 12 minutes ago, changed said: - including why their temple sealing was canceled, How do you iknow "why their temple sealing was canceled?" 12 minutes ago, changed said: and attending addiction recov mtgs... How do you know this person was attending such meetings? How do you know why this person was attending such meetings? 12 minutes ago, changed said: sorry, but it seems like this kind of stuff does not get cured for most people "This kind of stuff?" What does that mean? 12 minutes ago, changed said: - there should be strict guidelines for who is working with children etc. By way of contrary anecdotes . . . I know of several specific situations where the Church has taken specific and emphatic action to ensure that a person with past allegations of misconduct is restricted in terms of callings and responsibilities. I cannot give details as to the particular persons and situations. This is sort of the problem with this issue: anecdotal experiences on the one side (where the Church moves heaven and earth to protect innocents and mete out what limited discipline it can) are few and far between because of the Church's respect for confidentiality, because the Church is not really into publicly ostracizing or humiliating misbehaving members of the Church (and, by extension, their family members), and so on. Thanks, -Smac 1
changed Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 1 minute ago, smac97 said: May I ask how you know this? Disciplinary councils are kept confidential, after all. How do you know that no council was held? I don't follow. A cancelled sealing is, in your view, prima facie evidence that an individual cannot be trusted around children? As for attendance at "recovery groups," that's a pretty broad net to cast. Are you suggesting that anyone who attends such a recovery group is per se disqualified from working with children? "Known history" of what? How do you iknow "why their temple sealing was canceled?" How do you know this person was attending such meetings? How do you know why this person was attending such meetings? "This kind of stuff?" What does that mean? By way of contrary anecdotes . . . I know of several specific situations where the Church has taken specific and emphatic action to ensure that a person with past allegations of misconduct is restricted in terms of callings and responsibilities. I cannot give details as to the particular persons and situations. This is sort of the problem with this issue: anecdotal experiences on the one side (where the Church moves heaven and earth to protect innocents and mete out what limited discipline it can) are few and far between because of the Church's respect for confidentiality, because the Church is not really into publicly ostracizing or humiliating misbehaving members of the Church (and, by extension, their family members), and so on. Thanks, -Smac I know the people and kids in this case personally - no one believes this stuff until it hits your own home.... reasons for divorce are usually known, the types of addictions people have are known.
smac97 Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 25 minutes ago, changed said: Quote I would report this upstream to the area seventy and then General Authority over the area as I believe this is a standard policy...involved in child abuse, never allowed to work with children. Local leaders may think they know better and decide to break the rules, but SL would likely insist it be changed. You should be able to get name and contact info from a bishop or stake president. If you don't want to get it from yours, perhaps a friend who has a good relationship with their bishop can get the info from him. The guy is now in jail for the rest of his life - it was taken care of (not by the church). I am really confused. You seem to be faulting the Church for . . . what? What was "taken care of?" Presumably sexual misconduct, yes? If so, how do you propose the Church should have "taken care of" it? Civil authorities have the means and the authority to investigate crimes and mete out punishment (such as imprisonment). You seem to be praising these authorities (which is fine), while simultaneously faulting the Church for failing to do the same thing. But the Church obviously can't put a guy "in jail for the rest of his life." So what is it that you think the Church should have done? I'm not being obtuse. I'm just struggling to understand what the expectations are re: the Church and allegations of sexual abuse. There seems to be roundabout expectations that the Church investigate and punish in a quasi-law enforcement kind of way. And yet there are complaints that also go completely the other way - that the Church has no business "investigating" claims of this sort. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 Just now, changed said: Quote May I ask how you know this? Disciplinary councils are kept confidential, after all. How do you know that no council was held? I don't follow. A cancelled sealing is, in your view, prima facie evidence that an individual cannot be trusted around children? As for attendance at "recovery groups," that's a pretty broad net to cast. Are you suggesting that anyone who attends such a recovery group is per se disqualified from working with children? "Known history" of what? How do you iknow "why their temple sealing was canceled?" How do you know this person was attending such meetings? How do you know why this person was attending such meetings? "This kind of stuff?" What does that mean? By way of contrary anecdotes . . . I know of several specific situations where the Church has taken specific and emphatic action to ensure that a person with past allegations of misconduct is restricted in terms of callings and responsibilities. I cannot give details as to the particular persons and situations. This is sort of the problem with this issue: anecdotal experiences on the one side (where the Church moves heaven and earth to protect innocents and mete out what limited discipline it can) are few and far between because of the Church's respect for confidentiality, because the Church is not really into publicly ostracizing or humiliating misbehaving members of the Church (and, by extension, their family members), and so on. I know the people and kids in this case personally - no one believes this stuff until it hits your own home.... I don't know what this means. I certainly believe that sexual misconduct can and does occur. I don't need to wait until it "hits" my home to acknowledge that. Just now, changed said: reasons for divorce are usually known, the types of addictions people have are known. "Are known" by whom? Thanks, -Smac 1
changed Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't know what this means. I certainly believe that sexual misconduct can and does occur. I don't need to wait until it "hits" my home to acknowledge that. "Are known" by whom? Thanks, -Smac What are the procedures for getting a temple sealing canceled? Any divorce between two active members involves quite a few interviews before/during/and after. I do not know the legality of how anyone should handle confessions / interviews that involve illegal conduct... certainly anyone who has any kind of sexual addiction should not be working with children. Do they need to be convicted before a note is added next to their name? Edited April 3, 2018 by changed
changed Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 25 minutes ago, smac97 said: I am really confused. You seem to be faulting the Church for . . . what? What was "taken care of?" Presumably sexual misconduct, yes? If so, how do you propose the Church should have "taken care of" it? Civil authorities have the means and the authority to investigate crimes and mete out punishment (such as imprisonment). You seem to be praising these authorities (which is fine), while simultaneously faulting the Church for failing to do the same thing. But the Church obviously can't put a guy "in jail for the rest of his life." So what is it that you think the Church should have done? I'm not being obtuse. I'm just struggling to understand what the expectations are re: the Church and allegations of sexual abuse. There seems to be roundabout expectations that the Church investigate and punish in a quasi-law enforcement kind of way. And yet there are complaints that also go completely the other way - that the Church has no business "investigating" claims of this sort. Thanks, -Smac It was wrong for the church to give this high priest leadership callings, and callings taking children on camp outs etc. when they knew he had a history of sexual addictions - was going to the LDS addiction recovery groups etc.. Better support for the children and other family members would have been nice as well.
kllindley Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, changed said: certainly anyone who has any kind of sexual addiction should not be working with children. I would suggest this represents a pretty significant bias your part. Do you really think that sex addiction and pedophilia are connected in any way? 3
smac97 Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, changed said: Quote I don't know what this means. I certainly believe that sexual misconduct can and does occur. I don't need to wait until it "hits" my home to acknowledge that. "Are known" by whom? What are the procedures for getting a temple sealing canceled? Any divorce between two active members involves quite a few interviews before/during/and after. You are speaking of two different things. Cancellation of sealings and divorce are not synonymous. And I question how often bishops are "in the know" regarding why couples get divorced. Broad contours as to how the relationship is failing, yes. But you seem to be suggesting that "the Church" know particulars as to sexual abuse of children. Is that what you are alluding to here? 2 minutes ago, changed said: I do not know the legality of how anyone should handle confessions / interviews that involve illegal conduct... The legalities for handling allegations of abuse vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and also vary as to the types of abuse, the victim of the abuse, the source of the information, and so on. 2 minutes ago, changed said: certainly anyone who has any kind of sexual addiction should not be working with children. "Certainly?" What does "any kind of sexual addiction" mean? What metrics are you using here to get to "certainly?" 2 minutes ago, changed said: Do they need to be convicted before a note is added next to their name? No. But "any kind of sexual addiction" seems a bit overbroad, don't you think? Thanks, -Smac 1
Calm Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 45 minutes ago, mtomm said: To have done so would have caused major discord in my own marriage. In fact, it did cause it. My husband was furious that I wasn't just accepting of the "we'll send him home" scenario and threatened to quit his bishop calling over my stubborness. I felt I did what I could to escalate it since this was not my family. Of course, in hindsight my husband also realizes the truth now. But I shouldn't have had to. This is the culture of cover-up that everyone faithful LDS insists doesn't happen. Yet this is exactly what happened. The onus shouldn't have been on me! I'm not the one guilty of "passing the trash." The parents should not have been lied to. If the culture truly is that this type of behavior is not tolerated then it would not have been tolerated. It's been 6 or 7 years now and I'm not convinced things are getting better. My experience, minor I admit, in organizations is that often lower level employees or volunteers are more concerned with protecting the organization by covering up than higher ups. Don't have a clue if this pertains to the Church. I suspect it is probably a mixed bag. Certainly the almost ideal historical narrative presented (anyone who has sinned who stays in the Church repents of wrongdoing, those that don't get excommunicated or fall away in the stories) doesn't help low level leadership to feel comfortable with publicizing negatives.
Calm Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 19 minutes ago, changed said: certainly anyone who has any kind of sexual addiction should not be working with children. What about ones that only involve adults? Sexual addictions are widely defined, some members think fantasizing at all is an addiction, others think nightly use of porn rather than talking to one's spouse is not an addiction. 1
Prof Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 2 hours ago, mtomm said: If this had been my family instead of just dear friends I would have been in a different position. The grandparents know the missionary was only transferred. I have not had the heart to ask them if they ever told their children the missionary was not sent home as they were told. They chose to let the matter drop for a number of reasons mostly to just to keep the girls from being further questioned. There is a scene from a movie in which Samuel L Jackson quotes Ezekiel 25:17. If it were my children, I would repeat that scene, scripture and all. Being sent home wouldn't be good enough.
Jeanne Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: So rape isn't immoral? Not to the victim.
Tacenda Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 I'm hesitant to bring this up, but just read on a post on FB about a case of sexual harassment by Thomas L. Monson. Do any of you know about this in the news? https://www.newspapers.com/clip/16516501/mormon_prophets_son_accused_of_sexual/ What happened? Was there any punishment to Monson? It doesn't appear to have been.
Glenn101 Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 10 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Not to the victim. I take it that you mean that there is no immorality on the part of the victim. Glenn
Jeanne Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Glenn101 said: I take it that you mean that there is no immorality on the part of the victim. Glenn Yes...I read what I wrote and realized you could take it several different ways...! Sorry. 1
Recommended Posts