In 2013 a mission president was removed for misconduct

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So is the Church statement on the matter, technically a lie?

What was their statement again?

[Okrahomer]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

So is the Church statement on the matter, technically a lie?

I don't detect any sort of "lie" in the Church statement, and that isn't what "bugged" Peggy either.  She was bugged because LDS PR did not respond to her exclusively.  But you can read the statement here and here and judge for yourself:

“We feel profound sorrow for what each of these women has experienced. It is particularly heartbreaking that they have suffered because of the actions of a man who should have been a trusted priesthood leader. As followers of Jesus Christ, we want to do all within our power to both alleviate suffering and prevent abuse.”

“This is a tragic and heartbreaking case of deception and betrayal that has impacted many lives. When Church leaders learned of what had occurred, the mission president was immediately and dishonorably released from his position, sent home and excommunicated from the Church.”

“The victims, as adults, chose not to pursue criminal charges. The mission president was replaced by a General Authority who was sent to minister to those who had been affected.  The sister missionaries who had been deceived and victimized were provided with ecclesiastical and emotional counseling, which continues to be offered to this time.”

“The wife and family of the mission president have been assisted by the Church with the legal, emotional and personal consequences resulting from the immoral and sinful behavior of one man. We continue to ask members and leaders to embrace those harmed by such tragic situations with love, help, and the hope available through Jesus Christ.”

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ouch.  So it appears without Peggy's work this would have been another Church attempting to cover up a Church leader acting inappropriately with women.  I thought it was weird people were trying to use this as a way to say the Church handles these cases well, and has fixed the problems that were inherent in the Bishop case.  

So I gather you disagree with ALarson that it ought not be publicized because it hurts the man's family.

Seems like another instance in which the Church is d---ed if it does and d---ed if it doesn't.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I gather you disagree with ALarson that it ought not be publicized because it hurts the man's family.

I've stated that I feel bad for the family and feel awful that this is being publicized years later which has to have caused them to suffer all of this again and in a much more public manner.  I've never claimed the church was involved in a cover up.  I actually believe it was best to keep it private for the family's sake.  I'm grateful this story wasn't put out by church leaders this many years later.

I also believe it's good that questions were asked here.  Question that many seemed to wonder about and which motivated Okrahomer to act and find answers.  Kudos to him again!

Edited May 3, 2018 by ALarson

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Okrahomer said:

I don't detect any sort of "lie" in the Church statement, and that isn't what "bugged" Peggy either.  She was bugged because LDS PR did not respond to her exclusively.  But you can read the statement here and here and judge for yourself:

“We feel profound sorrow for what each of these women has experienced. It is particularly heartbreaking that they have suffered because of the actions of a man who should have been a trusted priesthood leader. As followers of Jesus Christ, we want to do all within our power to both alleviate suffering and prevent abuse.”

“This is a tragic and heartbreaking case of deception and betrayal that has impacted many lives. When Church leaders learned of what had occurred, the mission president was immediately and dishonorably released from his position, sent home and excommunicated from the Church.”

“The victims, as adults, chose not to pursue criminal charges. The mission president was replaced by a General Authority who was sent to minister to those who had been affected.  The sister missionaries who had been deceived and victimized were provided with ecclesiastical and emotional counseling, which continues to be offered to this time.”

“The wife and family of the mission president have been assisted by the Church with the legal, emotional and personal consequences resulting from the immoral and sinful behavior of one man. We continue to ask members and leaders to embrace those harmed by such tragic situations with love, help, and the hope available through Jesus Christ.”

“we want to do all within our power to both alleviate suffering and prevent abuse.”

Given that this mission presidents actions were covered up and it was portrayed as an issue with his wife’s health, I’d suggest the Church in this instance did not do everything within its power to find the extent of his actions both on the mission and previously to ascertain how many victims were out there. As far as the world was concerned he wasn’t dishonourably released. He was honourably released due to his wife’s ill health. 

Those things are misleading, and therefore lies by the Church’s own standard of honesty.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've stated that I feel bad for the family and feel awful that this is being publicized years later which has to have caused them to suffer all of this again and in a much more public manner.  I've never claimed the church was involved in a cover up.  I actually believe it was best to keep it private for the family's sake.  I'm grateful this story wasn't put out by church leaders this many years later.

Well said. I agree with you in this.

 

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I gather you disagree with ALarson that it ought not be publicized because it hurts the man's family.

Seems like another instance in which the Church is d---ed if it does and d---ed if it doesn't.

I didn't say anything about whether or not anyone should have publicized it.  I pointed out that it appears the incidents, whatever that all included, were not made known by the Church to anyone.  The Church seemed to have lied about why they were heading home from their president calling.   Who knows if he continued to use his influence to mistreat women?  I don't.  I'm not sure there is anything good to come of any of this though.  I'm not sure it's wise to tell missionaries a lie about why their mission president is going home.  it might have been better for everyone involved if the Church told the truth from the start.  Beats me.  Seems like a mistake to lie to me, since he obviously used his status to mistreat before, he could have continued to do so.  Not sure the Church handled this well or not.  I thought it odd it was being used by some as an example of the Church handling these things well.  

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I've stated that I feel bad for the family and feel awful that this is being publicized years later which has to have caused them to suffer all of this again and in a much more public manner.  I've never claimed the church was involved in a cover up.  I actually believe it was best to keep it private for the family's sake.  I'm grateful this story wasn't put out by church leaders this many years later.

I also believe it's good that questions were asked here.  Question that many seemed to wonder about and which motivated Okrahomer to act and find answers.  Kudos to him again!

Well the church did not keep the excommunication of Elder Hamula private for the family's sake.

General Authority Released Following Disciplinary Action

 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Well the church did not keep the excommunication of Elder Hamula private for the family's sake.

General Authority Released Following Disciplinary Action

 

Obviously, there was a compelling need in this instance. Even so, the announcement was restrained: no details disclosed.

And I don't think the family objected.

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Obviously, there was a compelling need in this instance. And I don't think the family objected.

 

What was the compelling need?

[Jeanne]

Just now, ttribe said:

What was the compelling need?

My question too..

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

What was the compelling need?

I guess it's not obvious to everyone.

I really don't care to go into it.

 

[smac97]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ouch.  So it appears without Peggy's work this would have been another Church attempting to cover up a Church leader acting inappropriately with women. 

I don't understand the jump to "cover up" accusations in situations like this.

Is it your position that the LDS Church has the affirmative duty to publicize incidents like this?  If so, why do you think that?

Quote

I thought it was weird people were trying to use this as a way to say the Church handles these cases well, and has fixed the problems that were inherent in the Bishop case.  

Why is that "weird?"  The Church not investigating Bishop is a huge part of the narrative.  In the Smartt matter, the Church received word of misconduct by a prominent leader of the Church, immediately investigated, immediately removed him, immediately separated him from those he had abused, immediately excommunicated him, and provided counseling to those injured.

Isn't all of this a good thing?  Isn't this the sort of prompt and decisive responsiveness we want to see in situations like this?

And if it is, then why is expressing satisfaction about the Church's handling of this matter "weird?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 3, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I've stated that I feel bad for the family and feel awful that this is being publicized years later which has to have caused them to suffer all of this again and in a much more public manner.  I've never claimed the church was involved in a cover up.  I actually believe it was best to keep it private for the family's sake.  I'm grateful this story wasn't put out by church leaders this many years later.

And but for Peggy Fletcher Stack, the story probably never would have gotten out.

To be frank, however, I have a hard time faulting her.  It's newsworthy.  And she ran the story years after the fact, which was hopefully long enough for Smartt's family and victims to gain some emotional distance from his misconduct and get on with their lives.

If I were related to, or was otherwise associated with, Smartt's ex-wife and children, I would probably resent the story getting out.  But you can't please everybody.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I also believe it's good that questions were asked here.  Question that many seemed to wonder about and which motivated Okrahomer to act and find answers.  Kudos to him again!

Indeed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Given that this mission presidents actions were covered up

"Covered up" = "not publicized before the entire world."

The accusation is a bit overwrought.

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

and it was portrayed as an issue with his wife’s health,

What if the wife requested that explanation, for her sake and for her children?

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’d suggest the Church in this instance did not do everything within its power to find the extent of his actions both on the mission and previously to ascertain how many victims were out there.

What makes you say that?

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

As far as the world was concerned he wasn’t dishonourably released. He was honourably released due to his wife’s ill health. 

"The world" didn't really know one way or the other.

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Those things are misleading, and therefore lies by the Church’s own standard of honesty.

He was sent home and excommunicated.  You seem to expect the Church to extract a pound of flesh or something.  What gives?

What if the wife didn't want his misconduct publicized?  What if his victims didn't want his misconduct publicized (as they may have wanted to complete their missionary service without dealing with gossip and innuendo about it)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Covered up" = "not publicized before the entire world."

The accusation is a bit overwrought.

What if the wife requested that explanation, for her sake and for her children?

What makes you say that?

"The world" didn't really know one way or the other.

He was sent home and excommunicated.  You seem to expect the Church to extract a pound of flesh or something.  What gives?

What if the wife didn't want his misconduct publicized?  What if his victims didn't want his misconduct publicized (as they may have wanted to complete their missionary service without dealing with gossip and innuendo about it)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Regardless of the rationale for doing so, the Church covered it up.

The story was, he was allowed home due to his wife’s illness and honourably discharged. That’s not true. That’s a cover up.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[stemelbow]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand the jump to "cover up" accusations in situations like this.

Is it your position that the LDS Church has the affirmative duty to publicize incidents like this?  If so, why do you think that?

I've given my thoughts on this in response to Scott.  I'm not so sure how best to handle it.  There may be valid reason to cover it up.  I'm not sure, though, it was a good idea to lie to the missionaries about why they were going home--mostly because he used his influence over the missionaries to do what the Church has said was immoral stuff.  Hopefully he didn't continue that.  If he did, then it might have been wise for the Church to tell the truth.  

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why is that "weird?"  The Church not investigating Bishop is a huge part of the narrative.  In the Smartt matter, the Church received word of misconduct by a prominent leader of the Church, immediately investigated, immediately removed him, immediately separated him from those he had abused, immediately excommunicated him, and provided counseling to those injured.

Isn't all of this a good thing?  Isn't this the sort of prompt and decisive responsiveness we want to see in situations like this?

And if it is, then why is expressing satisfaction about the Church's handling of this matter "weird?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I've said my piece.  All of that is fine--send him home, separate him, help those who were hurt.  Fine.  But, by keeping it quiet I don't know if other victims emerged.  That's the concern I'd have.  But again, I dont' even know what was totally involved here.  I'm just pointing out there was cover up.  

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Regardless of the rationale for doing so, the Church covered it up.

The story was, he was allowed home due to his wife’s illness and honourably discharged. That’s not true. That’s a cover up.

yup.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Regardless of the rationale for doing so, the Church covered it up.

Only if "Covered up" = "not publicized before the entire world."

I am an attorney.  I have access to all sorts of sensitive information that I do not divulge to other people.  It is absurd, though, to say that by doing so I am engaged in a "cover up."

Is it your position that the LDS Church has the affirmative duty to publicize incidents like this?  If so, why do you think that?

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

The story was, he was allowed home due to his wife’s illness

Which may well have been true.

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

and honourably discharged.

CFR, please, that the Church put out a "story" that Smartt was "honorably discharged."

Chapter and verse, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

I don't understand the jump to "cover up" accusations in situations like this.

Is it your position that the LDS Church has the affirmative duty to publicize incidents like this?  If so, why do you think that?

I've given my thoughts on this in response to Scott.  I'm not so sure how best to handle it. 

Then perhaps reserving judgment is preferable to faultfinding in this instance.

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There may be valid reason to cover it up. 

I don't think there was a "cover up."

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure, though, it was a good idea to lie to the missionaries about why they were going home--mostly because he used his influence over the missionaries to do what the Church has said was immoral stuff.  Hopefully he didn't continue that.  If he did, then it might have been wise for the Church to tell the truth.  

Fair enough.

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Why is that "weird?"  The Church not investigating Bishop is a huge part of the narrative.  In the Smartt matter, the Church received word of misconduct by a prominent leader of the Church, immediately investigated, immediately removed him, immediately separated him from those he had abused, immediately excommunicated him, and provided counseling to those injured.

Isn't all of this a good thing?  Isn't this the sort of prompt and decisive responsiveness we want to see in situations like this?

And if it is, then why is expressing satisfaction about the Church's handling of this matter "weird?"

I've said my piece.  All of that is fine--send him home, separate him, help those who were hurt.  Fine.  But, by keeping it quiet I don't know if other victims emerged. 

So the alternative to "keeping it quiet" would be . . . publicizing it?

What if Smartt's wife asked that her husband's disgrace be kept quiet?  What if his victims asked for that?

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's the concern I'd have.  But again, I dont' even know what was totally involved here.  I'm just pointing out there was cover up.  

I guess reasonable minds can disagree about that.  You've said your piece, and I've said mine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Only if "Covered up" = "not publicized before the entire world."

I am an attorney.  I have access to all sorts of sensitive information that I do not divulge to other people.  It is absurd, though, to say that by doing so I am engaged in a "cover up."

Is it your position that the LDS Church has the affirmative duty to publicize incidents like this?  If so, why do you think that?

Which may well have been true.

CFR, please, that the Church put out a "story" that Smartt was "honorably discharged."

Chapter and verse, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Quote

Elder Cornish said that after some discussion among some very senior Brethren it was decided that President would be released so he and Sister Smartt could go back to get the very best medical help available. 

http://kenpatterson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/gunshots.html

Quote

Hello family, THE BIG NEWS OF THE WEEK The sad thing that happened this week was the release of President Smartt. Sister Smartt was diagnosed with MS, and the first presidency released President so that they could be together in the United States together for her treatments. We didn't know about it, but apparently Sister Smartt has been in the United States doing tests for awhile, and it was just recently that she was diagnosed. It's really sad. She's a really great woman, and President Smartt is a great man.

http://eldermichaelcevering.blogspot.co.uk/

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

http://kenpatterson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/gunshots.html

Where's the part about Smartt being "honorably discharged?"

From the blog entry:

Quote

Back to the story.  Elder Cornish said that after some discussion among some very senior Brethren it was decided that President would be released so he and Sister Smartt could go back to get the very best medical help available.  So he was released and Elder Cornish is serving as a “temporary” president, for about a week, until another longer term temporary president can be called from the Seventy and make arrangements to come down here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Where's the part about Smartt being "honorably discharged?"

From the blog entry:

Thanks,

-Smac

Really? You can’t see from the two blog posts I’ve provided that his release was portrayed as honourable?

It’s worth noting that until very recently (as noted on page 1of this thread) his profile was still up on lds.org, four years after he as supposedly excommunicated.

So CFR that he was excommunicated at the time.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2018/04/lds-church-issues-statement-on-mission-president-excommunicated-in-2014-after-reports-of-misconduct/

The comments at the bottom of this^ article are interesting...

Quote

We have a home in Puerto Rico. This is only part of the story. In 2014, the mission president announced President Eyring had designated Puerto Rico a walking mission. Ordered them to park their cars and diverted the fuel budget to his account at the airport where he kept an airplane and private jet. It’s claimed that he took sister missionaries on jet rides. Elder Craig Zwick of the 1st Counsel of 70 took over the mission. He released all the mission leaders telling them they cared more about leadership positions than doing missionary work. The missionaries were instructed to keep it quiet. They kept their mouths shut but numerous local leaders told me what happened. You only had to be around Smartt a few minutes to tell he had no business being a mission president. I related this story to a local area authority in Grant in the summer of 2014. He was in denial. Of course, he also doesn’t think Jefferson County is corrupt. It must have been the lawsuit and ensuing media coverage that triggered the excommunication—a lot late in my opinion. But in these latter days it’s mostly about the coverup. All is well in Zion.

I repeat my CFR that he was excommunicated at the time.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Really? You can’t see from the two blog posts I’ve provided that his release was portrayed as honourable?

You said: "The story was, he was allowed home due to his wife’s illness and honourably discharged. That’s not true. That’s a cover up."

So . . . where's the part of the "story" about him being "honourably discharged?"

It's not there.  That was . . . an embellishment on your part.

Shall we call your claim a "lie?"  Or would you prefer to be accorded some benefit of the doubt?  A bit of leeway?  A bit of breathing room?  Perhaps a request that we not leap to the worst assumption about you, and instead reserve judgment and move on with life?

That's what I'd like to do.

I'd also like to see the critics and opponents of the Church give credit where credit is due.  The Church heard about the misconduct, immediately investigated it, immediately removed Smartt, immediately separated him from those he has abused, immediately excommunicated him, and provided counseling for his victims.

I can't fully account for Elder Cornish's apparently partial explanation, including the deliberate decision to not disclose Smartt's conduct to the missionaries.  We don't have all the facts.  But I think we can surmise a few important things:

• It wasn't really the business of the missionaries to know about Smartt's misconduct.
• The Church had no affirmative duty to disclose the basis of Smartt's misconduct to the missionaries or the world in general.
• The Church's SOP is to not publicize excommunications.
• Smartt's wife may have requested that her husband's disgrace not be disclosed.  For her sake.  For their children's sake.  So as to not demoralize the missionaries.  Lots of possible reasons there.
• Smartt's victims may have also requested that Smartt's misconduct toward them not be disclosed.  They may have wanted to finish their missionary service without dealing with gossip and snickers from other missionaries, members, the general public, etc.
• Requests for nondisclosure from Smartt's wife and/or victims may have put Elder Cornish in a very difficult position.
• The need for Sis. Smartt to receive medical care may well have been a development contemporaneous with the discovery of Smartt's misconduct.

And so on.  We just don't have all the facts.

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

It’s worth noting that until very recently (as noted on page 1of this thread) his profile was still up on lds.org, four years after he as supposedly excommunicated.

Why is that "worth noting?"  It was obviously an oversight (since he would have been released well prior to 2018 if he had served the full 3-year term of a mission president).

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So CFR that he was excommunicated at the time.

Here you go.

Thanks,

-Smac