Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

In 2013 a mission president was removed for misconduct

bsjkki

By bsjkki
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

ALarson Grand Master

ALarson

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying there is no substantive reason that I can see for raising it. It is idle chatter that reflects poorly on a person or entity -- which is the very essence of gossip.

Of course many may find reason to ask or wonder why this story suddenly came out just now.  5 years later?  Why?

If you don't know, just say so.  (I'll admit that I have no idea....)

It is curious for it to just appear in the newspaper right now, IMO unless someone knows of a good reason.  Is this man going to be charged with something related to this case?  Are any of the missionaries involved speaking out?

 

ttribe Grand Master

ttribe

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are engaging in gossip.

 

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying there is no substantive reason that I can see for raising it. It is idle chatter that reflects poorly on a person or entity -- which is the very essence of gossip.

I'm still confused.  Which part is the gossip? Wondering aloud why this story is just now coming out? Or, the story itself is gossip?

1
6EQUJ5 Rising Star

6EQUJ5

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying there is no substantive reason that I can see for raising it. It is idle chatter that reflects poorly on a person or entity -- which is the very essence of gossip.

You are 100% correct, Scott.

This is nothing more than insinuation based on no facts whatsoever.

ALarson Grand Master

ALarson

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

You are 100% correct, Scott.

This is nothing more than insinuation based on no facts whatsoever.

So why is this a story now when it wasn't back when it actually took place 5 years ago?  Any idea?

I've been searching and wondering if there were charges now brought against this Mission President related to this case or if missionaries are starting to speak out (getting the story in the media), but reading the story, I see absolutely no reason to publicize this right now.  How awful for the Smartt family for this story to just appear.

And with this headline:

Quote

 

The case of a fallen mission president

When the Mormon church promptly removed a leader who ‘deceived and victimized’ young female missionaries

 

What is the purpose of publishing this story now if nothing has taken place legally in the last 5 years and nothing going on with it right now?

Anyone?

Edited by ALarson
2
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am burnt out on looking up Bishop references so this is purely from memory...didn't the DN article or a Newsroom statement say there had been multiple inquiries about it and that is why there was a release?

If so, they (as in whoever keeps track of such things and then who they tell who makes decisions about such stuff) likely decided numbers would increase, so it was time to publicize it in order to relieve concerns and control the story as much as they should and could (I think the story should be controlled in order to protect his family as much as possible as well as any victims who now get this in their face again if they pay attention to Mormon news).

It is likely the Bishop scandal and the MeToo movement is bringing up many past incidents, known and unknown, in discussion groups across the internet and 'real life'.  This is a major one, imo, since there were multiple victims, somit makes sense that this one gets a press release.

As far as charges, the original victimizing occurred in Puerto Rico and there would be no reason for the state Smartt is in Now to press charges or any other state or the Feds as far as I am aware. (And given what I read about corruption and the abysmal record for handing sexual assault in Puerto Rico, expecting charges there is a pipe dream even if he can't bribe them anyomore due to bankruptcy.)

It is possible he has assaulted another victim and this new case has caused an investigation, but nothing came up in goggle back when it broke and I obviously wasn't the only one digging stuff up...though google is probably pretty superficial.

Edited by Calm
ALarson Grand Master

ALarson

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am burnt out on looking up Bishop references so this is purely from memory...didn't the DN article or a Newsroom statement say there had been multiple inquiries about it and that is why there was a release?

If so, they (as in whoever keeps track of such things and then who they tell who makes decisions about such stuff) likely decided numbers would increase, so it was time to publicize it in order to relieve concerns and control the story as much as they should and could (I think the story should be controlled in order to protect his family as much as possible as well as any victims who now get this in their face again if they pay attention to Mormon news).

It is likely the Bishop scandal and the MeToo movement is bringing up many past incidents, known and unknown, in discussion groups across the internet and 'real life'.  This is a major one, imo, since there were multiple victims, somit makes sense that this one gets a press release.

As far as charges, the original victimizing occurred in Puerto Rico and there would be no reason for the state Smartt is in Now to press charges or any other state or the Feds as far as I am aware. (And given what I read about corruption and the abysmal record for handing sexual assault in Puerto Rico, expecting charges there is a pipe dream even if he can't bribe them anyomore due to bankruptcy.)

It is possible he has assaulted another victim and this new case has caused an investigation, but nothing came up in goggle back when it broke and I obviously wasn't the only one digging stuff up...though google is probably pretty superficial.

I can't find anything either.  I wonder why there would have been reports about this coming out in the media right now....5 years later?

I just feel for his family if this wasn't necessary to publicize.

1
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I can't find anything either.  I wonder why there would have been reports about this coming out in the media right now....5 years later?

I just feel for his family if this wasn't necessary to publicize.

Wouldn't have to be media, could be private groups or public groups like this one where many of us shared personal MeToo moments, though I don't remember anyone sharing names.  Then members of these groups have privately written to mormonnewsroom or someone else asking for more info because they want to see justice done, etc.

Quote

just feel for his family if this wasn't necessary to publicize.

Amen

Edited by Calm
2
Exiled Mentor

Exiled

Posted
Posted
On 4/30/2018 at 12:39 PM, SouthernMo said:

One thing that I haven't read people discuss is why this is a story today.  This happened 4+ years ago.

I can't help but wonder if the LDS Public Affairs department released this (old) story to show that they can take swift and commensurate action when leaders misbehave...

This story is gaining traction on the heels of the Joseph Bishop allegations, in which the church allegedly mishandled reports of abuse.

Does anyone know the original source of this story?  Am I off base?

It definitely seems to be put out there to let the potential jury pool know that the church takes care of these problems when they arise ... sometimes ... even though maybe not exactly in the Bishop case.

1
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It definitely seems to be put out there to let the potential jury pool know that the church takes care of these problems when they arise ... sometimes ... even though maybe not exactly in the Bishop case.

Amazing.

if you don’t have facts to bash the Church with, a conspiracy theory will do. 

And so it goes. 

1
JulieM Grand Master

JulieM

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Amazing.

if you don’t have facts to bash the Church with, a conspiracy theory will do. 

And so it goes. 

I’m not saying there’s a hidden conspiracy, but why do you believe this information suddenly became important enough to publicize years later?  Why wasn’t it publicized when it happened if it was newsworthy? Any thoughts on that?

Someone decided it was a good idea to publish about it years after it happened!  And as others feel, I wonder if putting his family through this public humiliation was necessary. I imagine they suffered greatly at the time and it’s even more exposed now.

Edited by JulieM
Exiled Mentor

Exiled

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Amazing.

if you don’t have facts to bash the Church with, a conspiracy theory will do. 

And so it goes. 

Well, it seems to be a story that would have remained buried had the Bishop case not been out there.  It clearly is irrelevant to what is happening today without the Bishop case.  All of a sudden this matter comes up, years later?  You know Scott, conspiracies are prosecuted every day in court.   

Exiled Mentor

Exiled

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I’m not saying there’s a hidden conspiracy, but why do you believe this information suddenly became important enough to publicize years later?  Why wasn’t it publicized when it happened if it was newsworthy? Any thoughts on that?

Soneone decided it was a good idea to publish about it years after it happened!

Nothing to see here.  It is just there, without any relation to anything ..... obviously.  Back to the story, the church sure was swift to take care of this deviant mission president.  Wow!  They take care of business, surely.  Let's remember this when we discuss the Bishop case in the future.

Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Nothing to see here.  It is just there, without any relation to anything ..... obviously.  Back to the story, the church sure was swift to take care of this deviant mission president.  Wow!  They take care of business, surely.  Let's remember this when we discuss the Bishop case in the future.

Tin foil hats, anyone?

Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Well, it seems to be a story that would have remained buried had the Bishop case not been out there.  It clearly is irrelevant to what is happening today without the Bishop case.  All of a sudden this matter comes up, years later?  You know Scott, conspiracies are prosecuted every day in court.   

Not typically sans credible evidence. 

And no, trumped up innuendo does not constitute credible evidence. 

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

nevermind, just realized exiled was talking about a jury in a possible Bishop civil trial.

Edited by Calm
Exiled Mentor

Exiled

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Tin foil hats, anyone?

Of course. The reasons behind putting this old victory story out now must be muddied or made to appear as a random occurrence, because, obviously, a billion dollar church corporation does not do this in order to defend itself when serious allegations are levied against it.  Yes, it must be a tin-foil hat conspiracy.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Exiled Mentor

Exiled

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not typically sans credible evidence. 

And no, trumped up innuendo does not constitute credible evidence. 

Scott, are you required to spend time here as part of your DN contract or non-contractual job requirements?

Exiled has been exiled from this thread for their inability to dispute opinions instead of posters. ~Mods

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted
Quote

This episode comes to light during the #MeToo movement, when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as other religious institutions are facing increased scrutiny for their response to reports of clergy misdeeds.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/04/26/the-case-of-puerto-rico-when-the-mormon-church-promptly-removed-a-mission-president-who-deceived-and-victimized-young-female-missionaries/

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)
Quote

The LDS Church issued the statement Thursday in the wake of media reports of the mission president’s alleged misconduct, according to the Deseret News.

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46308830&nid=1016&title=lds-church-issues-statement-on-mission-president-released-excommunicated-in-2014-after-reports-of-misconduct

It reads as if there were published media articles about Smartt.  I would think such articles could be found by a custom search of say the last year up until last Wednesday prior to the statements' release.  

Otoh, it may be referring to media asking questions in preparation of published articles...media had reports about Smartt and we're going to publish them and the Church being made aware of that through being asked to comment (as it was stated in the Trib article though it looks like that one was post church statement, though they could have included the statement once it was released), so they released a statement immediately to get ahead of the story.

And yes, the Church statement may be a lie about media reports because an example of quick response to complaints would be a nice counterbalance....but choosing one where the guy was prosecuted or at least not one where the reason the MP was released was only half true (which opens another can of worms), I don't see that as a smart PR move, so I doubt it.  It seems like there is likely some useful excommunication out there that might be explained away as becoming newsworthy because of MeToo while at the time it occurred, it was kept locally quiet, but the guy was still prosecuted.

Edited by Calm
Exiled Mentor

Exiled

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

nevermind, just realized exiled was talking about a jury in a possible Bishop civil trial.

It seems obvious to me that this is what is going on.  I really don't blame the church for doing this.  The church should be able to defend itself by putting out this victory story, a la what Von Keetch (rip) authored a while back.

Exiled Mentor

Exiled

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. Are you?

Yes, the DN wants objective criticism from non-believing apostates.  Didn't you get the memo? 8)

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

Looks like the Trib questioned the Church's spokesperson prior to the statement being published, same link as above (missed it the first time around).

Quote

Hawkins noted Wednesday that “no police report was requested by the victims,” but added that “without question, these actions were reprehensible, immoral and against the laws of God and the standards of the church.”

 

Edited by Calm
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...