In 2013 a mission president was removed for misconduct

[HappyJackWagon]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that the church conditions young adults to believe that a leader who sexually abuses them is called of God? 

The church absolutely conditions young adults to believe their leader is called of God. The mission president is essentially the personal general authority for those missionaries. If that leader happens to manipulate them by sharing additional light and knowledge and/or grooming them in other spiritual ways, then it's easy to see how people go along with the church leader. There is so much historical evidence of these kinds of things happening, particularly among cult groups, that it seems reasonable to think that a scumbag leader could use those same cultist tricks on missionaries or others. It's sad, but true.

Not even looking at cult groups, we can find plenty of examples within our own faith tradition where leaders manipulate and use their influence, power, and ecclesiastical authority for sx.

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

Since the question about conditioning was a general one regarding the church my reference to a legal team was in the McKenna case. 

But the McKenna case is not a good example of anything 'general' so i'm not sure how reasonable it is to ask me to use that one example to gauge how a sexually abused young adult would react.  

We're talking about one case where the victim with a history of falsely accusing people of sexual misconduct and lying was actively suing the church.  We have many more examples of the church working with and helping sexual abuse victims, even when the perpetrator was a church leader.  

[Calm]

Quote

Sources who were in Puerto Rico at the time but were not authorized to speak on the record said they believe the church handled the Smartt matter appropriately and with sensitivity toward the women. Multiple young sister missionaries declined to be interviewed but noted that they, too, appreciated the church’s response....

Shortly before Smartt’s actions were discovered, his wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which is often a debilitating disease. The diagnosis was widely known among missionaries and came to be seen as the catalyst for the couple’s sudden departure, though LDS leaders never offered any reason for their absence beyond saying that the president had been released.

 

I think if it had been made public knowledge, it would have severely hampered many of the sister missionaries in the mission, especially the victims.  I can imagine the level of gossip and questioning would have been dramatic.  Frequent expressions of support still may end up rehearsing once again what they went through, forcing them to relive over and over.

Given it apparently involved a number of women and any information shared publicly would have put even those who chose not to go public in difficult positions (if asked if they were a victim, they would likely be required to lie to avoid the conversation if it became public knowledge), it sounds like the best of a bad situation.  None of the sisters involved needed to return home early.  Hopefully this means the counseling received was sufficient, though that would likely be the first steps towards healing and more might be needed over time.

Not being in their usual support system probably made it much harder to want to come forward (make it public).  The apparently crap police handling of such things might have sealed the deal.  While I hope that more victims come forward as police learn more effective investigation procedures, those closest appear to believe in this case it was the right decision for them and I think they should be given the respect of accepting their choices even if it is frustrating to know legal action wasn't taken.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But that's just it.  They know that no one is called of God who sexually abuses another person.. They know that the church would never condone a mission president sexually abusing sister missionaries.  So when you boil down this kind of an incident to a one-liner like "young adults are conditioned to believe their leaders are called of God" it makes me want to reply back "come on Tacenda, you know better than that."

Sadly, sexual abuse often goes unreported.

And that is part of the conditioning. They know their mission president must be righteous. The prophet wouldn't allow a wicked man to abuse them. So when they see questionable things, they don't trust their own instincts and instead give the MP the benefit of the doubt. After he slowly pulls them in to his abusive behaviors they begin to feel shame. They feel they've gone too far. They probably fear they won't be believed, or if they are, they'll be sent home and be shamed from the entire experience.

The point is, what missionaries "know" is part of the problem. They've been conditioned to trust their leaders, and the leaders above who called that leader. They trust in the gift of discernment they've been taught their leaders possess. So they may not recognize that what they "know" is wrong, until it's too late.

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church absolutely conditions young adults to believe their leader is called of God. The mission president is essentially the personal general authority for those missionaries. If that leader happens to manipulate them by sharing additional light and knowledge and/or grooming them in other spiritual ways, then it's easy to see how people go along with the church leader. There is so much historical evidence of these kinds of things happening, particularly among cult groups, that it seems reasonable to think that a scumbag leader could use those same cultist tricks on missionaries or others. It's sad, but true.

Not even looking at cult groups, we can find plenty of examples within our own faith tradition where leaders manipulate and use their influence, power, and ecclesiastical authority for sx.

 

Yes, but only as far as those leaders are righteous.  The church does not condition young adults that sexual abuse is o.k.  I agree that it's easy to see why some people go along with evil church leaders, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for the church to teach that leaders are called of God. That sin rests solely with the evil person who manipulated and groomed them.  

Satan has a long and diverse history of corrupting good things and then using them to bring about evil.  That something can be corrupted does not automatically mean that the thing itself was flawed before it's corruption or shares responsibility in the corruption.  Religion itself is a perfect example of that.  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And that is part of the conditioning. They know their mission president must be righteous. The prophet wouldn't allow a wicked man to abuse them. So when they see questionable things, they don't trust their own instincts and instead give the MP the benefit of the doubt. After he slowly pulls them in to his abusive behaviors they begin to feel shame. They feel they've gone too far. They probably fear they won't be believed, or if they are, they'll be sent home and be shamed from the entire experience.

The point is, what missionaries "know" is part of the problem. They've been conditioned to trust their leaders, and the leaders above who called that leader. They trust in the gift of discernment they've been taught their leaders possess. So they may not recognize that what they "know" is wrong, until it's too late.

 

Like i said before, the same thing happens with abusive parents and their own kids.  The kids have been conditioned to believe their parents love them, would never hurt them, and want what's best for them, then the parents use that to commit evil acts on their children.  That some despicable parents use their children's trust and love to betray and harm them doesn't mean that children should not be conditioned to trust their parents.  

Believing in the 5th article of faith is not the problem, just like children believing that their parents love them is not the problem.  

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but only as far as those leaders are righteous.  The church does not condition young adults that sexual abuse is o.k.  I agree that it's easy to see why some people go along with evil church leaders, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for the church to teach that leaders are called of God. That sin rests solely with the evil person who manipulated and groomed them.  

Satan has a long and diverse history of corrupting good things and then using them to bring about evil.  That something can be corrupted does not automatically mean that the thing itself was flawed before it's corruption or shares responsibility in the corruption.  Religion itself is a perfect example of that.  

Yet, in our own church history we have a founder, who it can be argued, manipulated women and young women in the name of God.

If a person is called of God, then there is a level of trust for that person. This was a brand new mission president. This likely wasn't his first engagement with sxual shenanigans. But the missionaries trust he was called of God through the prophets. Surely God wouldn't call an evil person or allow a wicked person to take advantage of them while in a position of trust. It's very easy, especially with our history to see how young women would give the benefit of the doubt to their priesthood leader.

I've known two women personally within my life who were manipulated by "righteous men" be become involved in polygamy. They were both bright, strong women so it took me a really long time to understand how they could be duped by these men. It boiled down to them trusting the priesthood leader more than their own feelings and spirituality. Once they realized the mistake, they blamed themselves.

Callings to high positions of authority, and even the priesthood itself is God's personal stamp of approval on a man in the church. If a woman trusts God, then they will trust that stamp of approval. IMO- the teaching around these concepts could be dramatically improved.

Edited April 26, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[CA Steve]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But the McKenna case is not a good example of anything 'general' so i'm not sure how reasonable it is to ask me to use that one example to gauge how a sexually abused young adult would react.  

We're talking about one case where the victim with a history of falsely accusing people of sexual misconduct and lying was actively suing the church.  We have many more examples of the church working with and helping sexual abuse victims, even when the perpetrator was a church leader.  

CFR the we have many other cases of the church helping the abuse victim when the perpetrator was a church leader. 

[bsjkki]

The church releases a statement. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900017024/lds-church-releases-statement-regarding-mission-presidents-misconduct-in-2014.html

 

Report this ad

Advertise with us

“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,” Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a statement released Thursday morning.

“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,” Hawkins said.

...

“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," Hawkins said.

Edited April 26, 2018 by bsjkki

[bluebell]

Just now, CA Steve said:

CFR the we have many other cases of the church helping the abuse victim when the perpetrator was a church leader. 

Some posters have shared personal experiences on this board.  There have also been other examples in the news.  This situation is one of them.  If you think my use of the word 'many' is too strong then that's fine, I retract that.  I haven't never personally gone looking for the stats and was just thinking of the ones that I have been aware of without have to go look for them.  That's why I used the term 'many'.  

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet, in our own church history we have a founder, who it can be argued, manipulated women and young women in the name of God.

If a person is called of God, then there is a level of trust for that person. This was a brand new mission president. This likely wasn't his first engagement with sxual shenanigans. But the missionaries trust he was called of God through the prophets. Surely God wouldn't call an evil person or allow a wicked person to take advantage of them while in a position of trust. It's very easy, especially with our history to see how young women would give the benefit of the doubt to their priesthood leader.

I've known two women personally within my life who were manipulated by "righteous men" be become involved in polygamy. They were both bright, strong women so it took me a really long time to understand how they could be duped by these men. It boiled down to them trusting the priesthood leader more than their own feelings and spirituality. Once they realized the mistake, they blamed themselves.

Callings to high positions of authority, and even the priesthood itself is God's personal stamp of approval on a man in the church. If a woman trusts God, then they will trust that stamp of approval. IMO- the teaching around these concepts could be dramatically improved.

Yes, that's exactly why so much evil is done in the name of religion.  It's very easy for people who claim to speak for God to misuse that trust.  Does that mean that no one should ever claim to speak for God?  Does that mean that religion is itself evil?   No, of course not.

No one should ever think that having a calling or is on it's own God's personal stamp of approval.   I was never taught that growing up and I got the standard typical church upbringing.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

It was for burglary and larceny...not related. He also declared bankruptcy. 

Hopefully a good part of that was a hefty divorce settlement if he is dating now.

 

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Just found this regarding 2016:

http://www.houmatoday.com/photogallery/DA/20160909/PHOTOGALLERY/909009998/PH/1

He was arrested on suspicion of larceny and burglary.

 

He's on this website too (DangerDating):

https://dangerdating.com/browse/florida/pensacola?page=29

 

 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

CFR the we have many other cases of the church helping the abuse victim when the perpetrator was a church leader. 

"We have?"  It's not like the Church is going to publicize figures on this.

The Church regularly assists members in receiving counseling for mental health issues.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Church, despite providing such assistance to members generally, nevertheless discriminates against, as in withholds assistance from, members of the Church who are abused by church leaders?

If so, then CFR on that.

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The church releases a statement. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900017024/lds-church-releases-statement-regarding-mission-presidents-misconduct-in-2014.html

 

Report this ad

Advertise with us

“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,” Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a statement released Thursday morning.

“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,” Hawkins said.

...

“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," Hawkins said.

I thought I read in a previous comment, perhaps the one about ex-reddit, that missionaries were sent home early.

I'm curious if the victims of this scumbag mission president were treated as victims or if they were released from their missions. I wonder if the "ecclesiastical counseling" they received was aimed at helping them repent of their sins in going along with the MP. I wonder if they were disciplined.

Are the women who were manipulated to engage sxually with a priesthood leader guilty of sxual sin?

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"We have?"  It's not like the Church is going to publicize figures on this.

The Church regularly assists members in receiving counseling for mental health issues.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Church, despite providing such assistance to members generally, nevertheless discriminates against, as in withholds assistance from, members of the Church who are abused by church leaders?

If so, then CFR on that.

-Smac

Please allow me to put words in your mouth then issue a CFR on what I think you really meant.

 

/boggle

Edited April 26, 2018 by CA Steve

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, that's exactly why so much evil is done in the name of religion.  It's very easy for people who claim to speak for God to misuse that trust.  Does that mean that no one should ever claim to speak for God?  Does that mean that religion is itself evil?   No, of course not.

No one should ever think that having a calling or is on it's own God's personal stamp of approval.   I was never taught that growing up and I got the standard typical church upbringing.

I agree that no one should think a calling is God's stamp of approval, yet many do. Why is that? Because that's how it is presented over and over in the church.

Every time a young man advances in priesthood office he stands in front of the congregation and the bishop says something like, "I've interviewed this young man and found him worthy to receive the office of...." As long as worthiness is used as a qualifier for priesthood and callings, then it is the same as saying that person has God's stamp of approval.

 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, that's exactly why so much evil is done in the name of religion.  It's very easy for people who claim to speak for God to misuse that trust.  Does that mean that no one should ever claim to speak for God?  Does that mean that religion is itself evil?   No, of course not.

No one should ever think that having a calling or is on it's own God's personal stamp of approval.   I was never taught that growing up and I got the standard typical church upbringing.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/07/we-are-called-of-god?lang=eng It might be this thinking in this quote, that is problematic. The article in the Ensign gives more context, that is more eye opening...to me. 

If we are to take that same principle and apply it at the ward level, we can see that the bishop, who is considered the father of his ward and who leads his ward with judiciousness and love and patience and kindness, is nonetheless not answerable to the members of his ward, but instead is answerable to the Lord and to those priesthood leaders who preside over him. The bishop is answerable for the members of his ward but not necessarily answerable to the members of his ward.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Please allow me to put words in your mouth then issue a CFR on what I think you really meant.

 

/boggle

Okay.  I apologize.

Without putting words into your mouth: 

The Church regularly assists members in receiving counseling for mental health issues.  Do you think that the LDS Church, despite providing such assistance to members generally, nevertheless discriminates against, as in withholds assistance from, members of the Church who are abused by church leaders?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that no one should think a calling is God's stamp of approval, yet many do. Why is that? Because that's how it is presented over and over in the church.

Every time a young man advances in priesthood office he stands in front of the congregation and the bishop says something like, "I've interviewed this young man and found him worthy to receive the office of...." As long as worthiness is used as a qualifier for priesthood and callings, then it is the same as saying that person has God's stamp of approval.

 

I don't think it's presented like that in the church by leaders though.  But I do think that some people personally present it that way and that some members learn this from their parents or just assume that's what it means based on a superficial interaction with the process.  And I disagree with your claim that because someone must be worth to receive the priesthood it means that that person has God's stamp of approval.  But, having said that, i think that there are members who see things this way because of a spiritually immature understanding worthiness and callings and I think the church could help with that.  

The church is constantly try to get us to take more responsibility for our spirituality, testimony, and gospel learning but most of us don't follow through like we need to on our own.  Very few members seem to be regularly studying their scriptures (let alone feasting on them), regularly praying, regularly fasting with purpose, etc.  In such circumstances, spiritual immaturity is a consequence (and I'm not saying that in a judgmental way.  It's all part of the process of becoming like Christ.  It's a work in progress for all of us and we all have a messed up understanding of the gospel in different areas).  

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I thought I read in a previous comment, perhaps the one about ex-reddit, that missionaries were sent home early.

I'm curious if the victims of this scumbag mission president were treated as victims or if they were released from their missions. I wonder if the "ecclesiastical counseling" they received was aimed at helping them repent of their sins in going along with the MP. I wonder if they were disciplined.

Are the women who were manipulated to engage sxually with a priesthood leader guilty of sxual sin?

The reddit comment about missionaries being sent home should not be taken as fact. Three years ago a comment thread was started seeking information about this case but the comment that began the discussion was “rumor.” He was seeking more information. I don’t believe any of the sisters were sent home because of the abuse.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's presented like that in the church by leaders though.  But I do think that some people personally present it that way and that some members learn this from their parents or just assume that's what it means based on a superficial interaction with the process.  And I disagree with your claim that because someone must be worth to receive the priesthood it means that that person has God's stamp of approval.  But, having said that, i think that there are members who see things this way because of a spiritually immature understanding worthiness and callings and I think the church could help with that.  

The church is constantly try to get us to take more responsibility for our spirituality, testimony, and gospel learning but most of us don't follow through like we need to on our own.  Very few members seem to be regularly studying their scriptures (let alone feasting on them), regularly praying, regularly fasting with purpose, etc.  In such circumstances, spiritual immaturity is a consequence (and I'm not saying that in a judgmental way.  It's all part of the process of becoming like Christ.  It's a work in progress for all of us and we all have a messed up understanding of the gospel in different areas).  

We can disagree about that because I don't know what a declaration of worthiness means otherwise.

I find it strange and condescending for you to claim it is "spiritually immature" for someone to believe church leader's claims of worthiness and discernment. But then I suppose I've spiritually matured in the past few years  

[Duncan]

So, what exactley did this MP in 2014 do? is that even known? 

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We can disagree about that because I don't know what a declaration of worthiness means otherwise.

I find it strange and condescending for you to claim it is "spiritually immature" for someone to believe church leader's claims of worthiness and discernment. But then I suppose I've spiritually matured in the past few years  

Why is it condescending to say that believing what our leaders say without spiritually verifying it for ourselves is spiritually immature, especially when I included "I'm not saying that in a judgmental way.  It's all part of the process of becoming like Christ.  It's a work in progress for all of us and we all have a messed up understanding of the gospel in different areas" my post?

Spiritual immaturity is not an insult.  We can't grow in the gospel if we don't start out immature.

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not when these young adults are conditioned to believe their leaders are called of God. 

Apparently some of them weren't conditioned enough and contacted people. 

Which is entirely to be expected.  The church teaches that sometimes you have to break rules to be obedient.

 

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that the church conditions young adults to believe that a leader who sexually abuses them is called of God? 

Unfortunately I think that is what she believes.  It is interesting the strange ideas that get into peoples heads when they leave the church. 

The story, in this case played out exactly as it should have.  I have seen it played out locally many times.  Misconduct is found out and the person doing it is released and usually excommunicated.  Never, in my experience has anyone said that being a leader excuses ones sins.  I have found that when one is a leader, if anything they are more likely to receive church discipline.