In 2013 a mission president was removed for misconduct

[Marginal Gains]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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).

Here you go.

Thanks,

-Smac

James Hamula’s excommunication was announced when it happened. Not years later when an investigative journalist found out about it and published a story on it. Why not Smartt’s? Unless he wasn’t actually excommunicated....

I’m going to cease responding on this one for a bit. I’m led to believe there’s additional details to be forthcoming, so I’ll see where it goes after that.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

James Hamula’s excommunication was announced when it happened.

A notable exception to the rule.

The rule, however, is to not announce excommunications.  Surely you know this.

Quote

Not years later when an investigative journalist found out about it and published a story on it. Why not Smartt’s? Unless he wasn’t actually excommunicated....

Right.  The Church is lying about when he was excommunicated.  How nice of you to publicly say such things.  And to our faces, no less.

This is faultfinding.  And not just faultfinding, but faultfinding based on sheer speculation and utterly untethered from any semblance of evidence or benefit of the doubt.

It could be said that you made a false claim in asserting that the LDS Church presented a "story" about Smartt being "honourably discharged."  That was an embellishment on your part.  It could be called a "lie."

But then that poisons the well, doesn't it?  Moreover, I don't think your embellishment was intended as a lie.  So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and hope that someday you could be persuaded to reciprocate the sentiment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 3, 2018 by smac97

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

James Hamula’s excommunication was announced when it happened. Not years later when an investigative journalist found out about it and published a story on it. Why not Smartt’s? Unless he wasn’t actually excommunicated....

Hamula was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy with stewardship over the entire church according to his particular assignments.  He had spoken in general conference and was (relatively) well known.

Smart was a mission president with stewardship only within the mission boundaries.  He would be known really only within that mission and the area where he came from.

If seems appropriate to announce to the general membership of the church when a general authority has been excommunicated.  I don't see the same purpose served by announcing the same for a mission president.

 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Hamula was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy with stewardship over the entire church according to his particular assignments.  He had spoken in general conference and was (relatively) well known.

Smart was a mission president with stewardship only within the mission boundaries.  He would be known really only within that mission and the area where he came from.

If seems appropriate to announce to the general membership of the church when a general authority has been excommunicated.  I don't see the same purpose served by announcing the same for a mission president.

I can see that.  So, his stewardship was over the mission and missionaries serving there.  Was it announced to them, do you know?  

[CA Steve]

So the feelings of a mission president's wife and family are to be taken into consideration when announcing things, but if one is a Seventy, somehow the family's feelings are not as important?

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is faultfinding.  And not just faultfinding, but faultfinding based on sheer speculation and utterly untethered from any semblance of evidence or benefit of the doubt.

Sort of like the quickly debunked speculation that it was the Church, not an inquiring newspaper reporter, who publicized the Smartt episode five years after the fact and that the Church did it for purely PR purposes.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Vanguard]

Some of these critical responses are almost trollish! I believe smac listed several reasonable scenarios that might prompt the leadership not to announce the details behind why the MP was released. If none of them were relevant then I would agree it would have been better to give the full truth to the missionaries. But in the absence of this additional info what purpose is served - other than to stir the pot - in continuing to question the decision not to divulge the details? How will we ever know? And not to be outdone, we are now contemplating the unjust nature of divulging the reality behind the GA's excommunication?! Good grief... : (

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

So the feelings of a mission president's wife and family are to be taken into consideration when announcing things, but if one is a Seventy, somehow the family's feelings are not as important?

Apparently, one of the biggest differences between the two cases was that his “victims” really wanted to stay on their missions and didn’t want to be the object of speculation (see below from Peggy Stack’s SL Trib article):

”To that end, Mormon authorities, including Zwick and LDS leaders from mission regional headquarters in the Dominican Republic, “were very caring and concerned for the welfare of the sisters,” said Idahoan Gaye Patterson, who was in Puerto Rico at the time with her husband, Ken, as a senior Mormon missionary. “They were there to make sure [the sisters] were protected.”

“...if LDS officials (had) made “the announcement that he had inappropriate [behavior] with some of the sisters, everyone would speculate about who and how for the rest of the [victims’] missions,” Cornwall said. “If the sisters were going to be able to stay on their missions, it couldn’t be told to everyone.”

[LoudmouthMormon]

I just discovered that this thread was opened almost two weeks ago.  I just heard about it today.  Therefore, I accuse [person/group x] of a coverup.

That logic works, right?

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I just discovered that this thread was opened almost two weeks ago.  I just heard about it today.  Therefore, I accuse [person/group x] of a coverup.

That logic works, right?

Well, I think there may be still more coming out on this.  

Some are posting blog posts from sister missionaries who apparently were without companions at times and were invited to spend the night in the mission home (having their "own bedroom and bathroom".  Very odd stuff.

Seems this MP was attempting to possibly groom these sister missionaries to be plural wives and was into some "deep doctrine".  

I'm glad the church dealt with it and ended what was going on as soon as they learned about it.

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, I think there may be still more coming out on this.  

Some are posting blog posts from sister missionaries who apparently were without companions at times and were invited to spend the night in the mission home (having their "own bedroom and bathroom".  Very odd stuff.

Seems this MP was attempting to possibly groom these sister missionaries to be plural wives and was into some "deep doctrine".  

I'm glad the church dealt with it and ended what was going on as soon as they learned about it.

It sounds like he did more than just groom them, if it's true that the sister missionaries decided not to press charges.  Pressing charges implies laws were broken.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It sounds like he did more than just groom them, if it's true that the sister missionaries decided not to press charges.  Pressing charges implies laws were broken.

Oh, I agree.  He was excommunicated for committing adultery.  Apparently he was also involved with at least one new convert.  But, any sexual advances or contact with the sister missionaries must have not been consensual or I'd imagine the sister missionary would have been sent home as well.  If he broke a law (and it does imply that he did), I would imagine it was some sort of sexual abuse or sexual assault.  

Edited May 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Marginal Gains]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I agree.  He was excommunicated for committing adultery.  Apparently he was also involved with at least one new convert.  But, any sexual advances or contact with the sister missionaries must have not been consensual or I'd imagine the sister missionary would have been sent home as well.  If he broke a law (and it does imply that he did), I would imagine it was some sort of sexual abuse or sexual assault.  

We don’t know that. But if it was adultery with sister missionaries, then it was consensual. In which case they should also have been excommunicated. If it wasn’t consensual, then he should have been pursued as a rapist. If what he did was against the law then why wasn’t he handed over to the appropriate police?

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

We don’t know that. But if it was adultery with sister missionaries, then it was consensual. In which case they should also have been excommunicated. If it wasn’t consensual, then he should have been pursued as a rapist. If what he did was against the law then why wasn’t he handed over to the appropriate police?

Wellllll, let me let you in on a little secret...it wouldn't look good for the church, that's why. 

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

We don’t know that.

Well, reading online (I know...but there are several sources), posts even back in 2015 from members of his stake have stated that he was excommunicated for numerous counts of adultery.  I won't link to the other sites, but there are too many of them from people who knew him, to not at least put some stock in them, IMO (especially those who posted about him before these recent press releases).  There are similarities from each source.  I know it's online, so I do realize there are some questions too regarding them being anonymous.

And he was excommunicated.  So it was something serious (of course....and I know you realize this as well).

Edited May 7, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

We don’t know that. But if it was adultery with sister missionaries, then it was consensual. In which case they should also have been excommunicated. If it wasn’t consensual, then he should have been pursued as a rapist. If what he did was against the law then why wasn’t he handed over to the appropriate police?

The article states that the victims refused to press charges.  

[ALarson]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The article states that the victims refused to press charges.  

Do we even know if the police were contacted or involved at all?  

(I haven't read if they were or not...)

Edited May 7, 2018 by ALarson

[juliann]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I agree.  He was excommunicated for committing adultery.  Apparently he was also involved with at least one new convert.  But, any sexual advances or contact with the sister missionaries must have not been consensual or I'd imagine the sister missionary would have been sent home as well.  If he broke a law (and it does imply that he did), I would imagine it was some sort of sexual abuse or sexual assault.  

That is a problematic use of consenual. The missionary is not a peer of the mission prez. The dynamics are extremely unequal. That involves a degree of coercion even if it is not done forcefully. There should never be equal treatment of the perpetrator and his targeted victim. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do we even know if the police were contacted or involved at all?  

(I haven't read if they were or not...)

Apparently not:

Quote

Philander Knox Smartt III was replaced in April 2014 after the women said they had been deceived and victimised, said Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Hawkins wouldn't provide further details and the statement didn't say how many women had made allegations. They chose not to pursue criminal charges or file a police report, he said.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I agree.  He was excommunicated for committing adultery.  Apparently he was also involved with at least one new convert.  But, any sexual advances or contact with the sister missionaries must have not been consensual or I'd imagine the sister missionary would have been sent home as well.  If he broke a law (and it does imply that he did), I would imagine it was some sort of sexual abuse or sexual assault.  

I suspect this is the sort of speculation that the sister missionaries wanted to avoid.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is a problematic use of consenual. The missionary is not a peer of the mission prez. The dynamics are extremely unequal. That involves a degree of coercion even if it is not done forcefully. There should never be equal treatment of the perpetrator and his targeted victim. 

I completely agree.  It gets tricky when it's sexual abuse (and still could be technically considered consensual).  I think that's what you're also stating...but sorry if I've misunderstood.  It's definitely sexual abuse when someone in a position of power or authority takes advantage of a person’s trust and respect to involve them in sexual activity (ie. teacher/student; doctor/patient) and that's the case here with him being the Mission President over these sister missionaries.  With the implication that a law was broken, that's most likely what took place.

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by ALarson

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, I think there may be still more coming out on this.  

Some are posting blog posts from sister missionaries who apparently were without companions at times and were invited to spend the night in the mission home (having their "own bedroom and bathroom".  Very odd stuff.

Seems this MP was attempting to possibly groom these sister missionaries to be plural wives and was into some "deep doctrine".  

I'm glad the church dealt with it and ended what was going on as soon as they learned about it.

They were sleeping at the mission home alone without a companion?  

Did their parents know about this?  

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The article states that the victims refused to press charges.  

Does anyone know why there were no pressed charges?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

We don’t know that. But if it was adultery with sister missionaries, then it was consensual. In which case they should also have been excommunicated. If it wasn’t consensual, then he should have been pursued as a rapist. If what he did was against the law then why wasn’t he handed over to the appropriate police?

Check out Puerto Rico's record on sexual assault and in general corruption.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Wellllll, let me let you in on a little secret...it wouldn't look good for the church, that's why. 

Compassion for anyone, but the Church, Tac?