In 2013 a mission president was removed for misconduct

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't.  My sustaining of them stemmed almost completely from my confirmation of the other apostles having been called of God and also the spirit that I felt during that whole process.    That's how I handle those kinds of things.  

Have you got an example of a general authority or Stake President or Bishop being called where you didn’t get a personal confirmation, and did that stop you sustaining them?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Have you got an example of a general authority or Stake President or Bishop being called where you didn’t get a personal confirmation, and did that stop you sustaining them?

Nope.  Honestly, I don't typically seek such confirmation.   With those kinds of callings I tend to proceed with a 'good faith' trust that the person, though not perfect, will do their best as a volunteer in the church and i'm fine with that.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Speaking from experience I had a very personal episode broadcast to people and, nope it was not cool at all😞 I had another time too where it wasn't as personal but it was not meant to public consumption but it was too broadcast, without my knowing and permission

I agree with this. I understand the church not wanting to hurt these sister missionaries. But believe they also had other reasons to cover up what this mission president did back then. Maybe it was to protect his family as well. Still get that thought about Bishop's family and the harm it's done to them. But what to do, what to do. 

Someone mentioned 'reputation' on another post or thread. I'm still reeling about someone spreading a false rumor about me. A few years after high school a girl who is the younger sister of someone that I didn't get along with in elementary school, came up to me and told me the rumor that was started about me. It was so far off the mark and not anything I would ever dream of doing. To think that people believed that and I had no way of going to everyone and stating that I never did what was rumored about me, such a scary thing to have happen. Because some people like hurtiing others to make themselves feel better.  

So these sister missionaries should be protected. But sadly the rumor ring will start and people will come up with all kinds of things. 

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Nope.  Honestly, I don't typically seek such confirmation.   With those kinds of callings I tend to proceed with a 'good faith' trust that the person, though not perfect, will do their best as a volunteer in the church and i'm fine with that.

And that’s how predators get in. The Church goes with ‘good faith’ as being a superior sign off process, instead of having proper risk protocols and safeguarding protocols in place. The spiritual confirmations would work a lot better if those things were done properly. Frankly, what Elder Oaks said about rather being disappointed occasionally than actually considering the risk of each appointment, is deeply worrying. He’s also failing his duty to protect the Church’s reputation by holding to that view.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[bluebell]

Just now, Marginal Gains said:

And that’s how predators get in. The Church goes with ‘good faith’ as being a superior sign off process, instead of having proper risk protocols and safeguarding protocols in place in. The spiritual confirmations would work a lot better if those things were done properly. Frankly, what Elder Oaks said about rather being disappointed occasionally than actually considering the risk of each appointment, is deeply worrying.

Come on MG.  You don't believe that God calls anyone and you don't believe that anyone ever gets confirmation from the Spirit that someone is called of God.  There is no answer that I could have given you that you would have felt could stop predators from getting in.

 

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Come on MG.  You don't believe that God calls anyone and you don't believe that anyone ever gets confirmation from the Spirit that someone is called of God.  There is no answer that I could have given you that you would have felt could stop predators from getting in.

 

I think there’s sufficient examples to warrant the Church putting proper safeguarding in place. That it hasn’t yet done so, despite Bishop, Smartt etc is nothing short of negligence. The Church continues to rely on the spirit when it’s been shown to be inadequate to the point of serious harm befalling numbers of people. For example, can you think of a good reason why missionaries don’t yet receive proper training in how to spot and report problem behaviour in Mission Presidents and why whistle blowing isn’t actively facilitated and encouraged? 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

And that’s how predators get in. The Church goes with ‘good faith’ as being a superior sign off process, instead of having proper risk protocols and safeguarding protocols in place.

What sort of protocols do you have in mind?

(Genuine question here).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What sort of protocols do you have in mind?

(Genuine question here).

Thanks,

-Smac

I’ve mentioned some already - for example specific safeguarding training for missionaries in relation to leader abuse etc, in conjunction with a secure process for reporting suspected misconduct by leaders, including a hotline that goes to a trained safeguarding professional. Why couldn’t something as simple as that be in place, globally, right now?

Which senior Church leader has the accountability for safeguarding? (I’ll bet there isn’t one).

Edited April 27, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Who is Elder Cornish?  Is there any reason to believe he knew the real story and was actively deceiving or was he like apparently many others just making faulty connections.

I do believe calling the silence of the Church officials who knew the reality not saying anything when they knew the impression wassomething else deception is accurate, but I have always defined lying as an active behaviour, actually speaking an untruth, forcing a false belief on someone as opposed to not providing accurate info.  In many cases deception is as bad as lying, but at times I believe it is the right choice to protect the innocent.  And when the innocents are adults and approve of the deception, I see it as likely the appropriate choice.

There is a very good chance the victims had access to tech that would have allowed them to leak the information if they so desired.  The blogger you got the Elder Cornish quote on was a senior missionary and so may have had greater access, but there have been missionaries writing to exmormon groups for probably a decade at least that I have seen from many parts of the world, so I highly doubt the sister missionaries were without that option if they chose to act on it.  A nephew was on a remote island in the pacific in 2014 where they had issues with getting enough water transported out there when there wasn't enough rain, but he was still able to send off weekly reports via the internet.

That none chose to leak the abuse online in anger or frustration at being silenced may be a sign of hugh social pressure, but more likely is a sign imo given none left early and the silence apparently has continued for 5 years that they were in agreement with the decision to allow people to think what they wanted, even knowing it was wrong.

If there are victims who now speak out and say they felt inappropriately pressured to keep quiet from the Church leadership, I will condemn the Church officials for doing so.  If victims say they felt pressured from the situation not to speak up, I will vocally push for creating better procedures to help victims feel it is appropriate to speak out if they desire to.

And as I have said multiple times I believe there should be a widely publicized hotline for reporting and support of abuse victims operated with the very public approval of the Church along the lines of demonstrated successful abuse hotlines currently available through charities, governments, schools, etc.

I thought Elder Cornish is the guy that took over right after the mission president was ousted and was in charge of the mission until a replacement mission president was put in.  Do I have that wrong?

If he is that guy, then surely he would be quite aware of what went on when he stated that it was the problem with the wife's health.

I get your point Calm.  But  for me, honesty and truthfulness really is the only option for me in these kinds of matters.  Telling a false story is just not the way to go for all the reasons I listed before.  This isn's some white lie.  This seems to be pretty deceptive about a very important issue.  This is the kind of deception that when people find out about feel betrayed.  I still don't see a solid enough reason to have at least said the mission president was released because of improper behavior.  I agree that there is no need to involve the sister missionaries.  

[Duncan]

Elder W. Craig Zwick was the GA who took over for the mission, Elder Cornish was in the Area Presidency and he seems to be involved, but what involvement Elder Zwick had beyond taking over the affairs of the mission, I don't know

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Quote

Quote

And that’s how predators get in. The Church goes with ‘good faith’ as being a superior sign off process, instead of having proper risk protocols and safeguarding protocols in place.

What sort of protocols do you have in mind?

I’ve mentioned some already - for example specific safeguarding training for missionaries in relation to leader abuse etc, in conjunction with a secure process for reporting suspected misconduct by leaders, including a hotline that goes to a trained safeguarding professional. Why couldn’t something as simple as that be in place, globally, right now?

Which senior Church leader has the accountability for safeguarding? (I’ll bet there isn’t one).

You previously said: "And that’s how predators get in."  But how would what you are suggesting (training for missionaries, process for reporting misconduct) relate to "predators get[ting] in?"  Your suggestions (and I am not criticizing them here) all relate to protocols for when a person is already in place in a position of authority in the Church.  

You seemed to be proposing vetting procedures which would be used prior to a person being called into a position of authority.  Like vetting a stake president or a mission president.  Is that right?  If so, what pre-calling vetting procedures would you have in mind?

(Still just curious, seeking to understand, not argue.)

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I wouldn't be surprised if care for the feelings of the wife and children were one of the reasons the church was evasive.  By keeping things private it was probably much easier on them.  I know that when my friend was faced with finding out some unflattering news about the actions of her husband, she adamantly did NOT want anyone to know that absolutely did not need to know.  It would have only added to her and her children's grief.  

This is a sticky issue.  I get where you are coming from.  But there are so many other factors to consider as I mentioned in my previous posts.  In these kinds of situations, I have never known church members to blame the wife or children for a husbands misconduct.  If anything, knowing what the husband did members would or at least should be especially supportive of the wife and children.  They are the innocent victims of. what the mission president did.  That is part of the burden that mission president must face.  It is part of the seriousness of his actions.

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Elder W. Craig Zwick was the GA who took over for the mission, Elder Cornish was in the Area Presidency and he seems to be involved, but what involvement Elder Zwick had beyond taking over the affairs of the mission, I don't know

Thank you.  He certainly should not have mislead what actually happened.  That was dishonest.  

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

I thought Elder Cornish is the guy that took over right after the mission president was ousted and was in charge of the mission until a replacement mission president was put in.  Do I have that wrong?

If he is that guy, then surely he would be quite aware of what went on when he stated that it was the problem with the wife's health.

I get your point Calm.  But  for me, honesty and truthfulness really is the only option for me in these kinds of matters.  Telling a false story is just not the way to go for all the reasons I listed before.  This isn's some white lie.  This seems to be pretty deceptive about a very important issue.  This is the kind of deception that when people find out about feel betrayed.  I still don't see a solid enough reason to have at least said the mission president was released because of improper behavior.  I agree that there is no need to involve the sister missionaries.  

I thought that was Elder Zwick....Duncan got there first.  

Edited April 27, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I thought that was Elder Zwick....Duncan got there first.  

Do you think  Elder Cornish as Area Presidency should have been truthful?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is a sticky issue.  I get where you are coming from.  But there are so many other factors to consider as I mentioned in my previous posts.  In these kinds of situations, I have never known church members to blame the wife or children for a husbands misconduct.  If anything, knowing what the husband did members would or at least should be especially supportive of the wife and children.  They are the innocent victims of. what the mission president did.  That is part of the burden that mission president must face.  It is part of the seriousness of his actions.

The family may be supported by others, but how do you think the children feel when hearing bad things said about their father even if no one blames them?

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

The family may be supported by others, but how do you think the children feel when hearing bad things said about their father even if no one blames them?

It is their fathers fault entirely that their children hear bad things about him.  Like I said, this is damage that the father must repair with. his children.  It is part of the repentance process.  Yes it is hard.  But when a father breaches trust like this mission president did, then it is up to him to make amends with those he has hurt including his children.  They may very well might not have nothing to do with him and take their mothers side to support her until the father can earn back this trust.

But this has nothing to do with the church being deceptive in what happened.  What if the children find out about this later and find out that the church covered it up.  Would you trust the church to be honest about what it says?

Edited April 27, 2018 by california boy

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You previously said: "And that’s how predators get in."  But how would what you are suggesting (training for missionaries, process for reporting misconduct) relate to "predators get[ting] in?"  Your suggestions (and I am not criticizing them here) all relate to protocols for when a person is already in place in a position of authority in the Church.  

You seemed to be proposing vetting procedures which would be used prior to a person being called into a position of authority.  Like vetting a stake president or a mission president.  Is that right?  If so, what pre-calling vetting procedures would you have in mind?

(Still just curious, seeking to understand, not argue.)

Thanks,

-Smac

The more hoops and scrutiny a predator has to pass through to gain access to victims, the more they perceive the risk of being caught, the more risk aware the organisation and its people appear to be, the less likely they are to pick your organisation as a place to try. It’s about making your institution appear to be the hardest place for a predator to succeed. See if your kids school has a safeguarding policy, and look what is involved in making that school seem to be a hard target for predators. 

In terms of protocols to help protect against predators already in situ. Where’s the hotline for concerned members/missionaries to call with suspected incidents of wrongdoing? Where the training for members on what ‘grooming’ looks like - intentional grooming by predators and unwitting grooming by genuine people who are doing things that make vulnerable children and adults more susceptible to the attentions of a predator?

Where is the safeguarding department with the trained professionals putting this stuff in place?

[Calm]

Just now, california boy said:

Do you think  Elder Cornish as Area Presidency should have been truthful?

I don't know the situation, I don't know the wife and family's situation and how she might have seen it impact her.  I don't know what the sister missionaries asked of the leaders.  

I wish people could be honest in everything, I also know sometimes deception and lying are necessary.

My mother has dementia.  I do not tell her this because I know she fears it and it would interfere with her ability to enjoy life and be independent.  We also do not tell her everything that is happening in the family because she owns everyone's problems and tries to solve (and sometimes very damaging ways, though always very well intentioned) them and lies awake at night worrying.

I don't think we should usually protect adults from the truth, but children...things that can cause fear, that I am much more careful on.  With sexual assault and other vulnerable adults, I think it should be a case by case situation...don't treat them like children, but allow them as much control of their lives as you can.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is their fathers fault entirely that their children hear bad things about him.  Like I said, this is damage that the father must repair with. his children.  It is part of the repentance process.  Yes it is hard.  But when a father breaches trust like this mission president did, then it is up to him to make amends with those he has hurt including his children.  They may very well might not have nothing to do with him and take their mothers side to support her until the father can earn back this trust.

But this has nothing to do with the church being deceptive in what happened.  What if the children find out about this later and find out that the church covered it up.  Would you trust the church to be honest about what it says?

And if the father is a real jerk and cares nothing about anyone else but himself so you know he won't be making amends anytime soon?

Case by case...while I do believe future potential harm should be taken into,account, I generally give higher weight to harm that is immediate.

In this case, the kids had probably just found out their mom had an incurable disease.  Whether they separated immediately or relatively soon after, I don't know, but being at home was probably highly traumatic for the kids.  To then go to school and be wondering when the next person would comment about all that rather than just have some time to be a normal kid...yeah, that would be very hard for me to ask of a kid just so I could feel good about my personal principles.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

On 4/27/2018 at 4:27 PM, california boy said:

I thought Elder Cornish is the guy that took over right after the mission president was ousted and was in charge of the mission until a replacement mission president was put in.  Do I have that wrong?

IIRC, Elder Cornish was in the Area Presidency in that area during the time.  He was living in the Dominican Republic, which very likely is the same area as Puerto Rico (they are only 380 kilometers apart).

Quote

If he is that guy, then surely he would be quite aware of what went on when he stated that it was the problem with the wife's health.

Perhaps.

Elder Cornish is a very good guy.  

Quote

I get your point Calm.  But  for me, honesty and truthfulness really is the only option for me in these kinds of matters.  Telling a false story is just not the way to go for all the reasons I listed before.  

You raise a fair point.

Quote

This isn's some white lie.  This seems to be pretty deceptive about a very important issue.  

Hmm.  Why is it "very important?"

Quote

This is the kind of deception that when people find out about feel betrayed.  

Yes, that can be true.

Quote

I still don't see a solid enough reason to have at least said the mission president was released because of improper behavior.

What if the MP's wife specifically asked that the reason not be disclosed?

What if one or more of the sister missionaries who were offended asked that the reason not be disclosed?  Might they want to finish their missions without having to cope with weird questions and speculations from members and other missionaries?

Quote

I agree that there is no need to involve the sister missionaries.  

"Improper behavior" would probably trigger suspicion and gossip about sexual indiscretion.  And if the MP's conduct was brazen and involving multiple sisters (as it appears to have been the case), then tongues would have been wagging.  Missionaries, unfortunately, love intrigues.  

So perhaps there were two roughly comparable reasons for the MP to be released.  And perhaps the MP's wife and/or some of the sister missionaries did not want the matter publicized.  And perhaps this put Elder Cornish into a very difficult situation, such that he focused on one reason to the exclusion of the other.

I have met Elder Cornish.  Many times.  He's been to my house.  He attended my son's talk-during-the-Sacrament-Meeting-that-shall-not-be-called-a-"Farewell," and ended up presiding at this meeting (he's a Seventy, after all) and giving some remarks.  I also know Elder Cornish's wife.  And their son with Downs Syndrome.  And their other son (my brother-in-law).  These are all exceedingly fine and good people.

I am a firm proponent of honesty, but I know Elder Cornish and his character.  And I wasn't there.  And I do not have all the facts.  Given these considerations, I am going refrain from adverse conclusions about what happened here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 18, 2020 by smac97

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I don't know the situation, I don't know the wife and family's situation and how she might have seen it impact her.  I don't know what the sister missionaries asked of the leaders.  

I wish people could be honest in everything, I also know sometimes deception and lying are necessary.

My mother has dementia.  I do not tell her this because I know she fears it and it would interfere with her ability to enjoy life and be independent.  We also do not tell her everything that is happening in the family because she owns everyone's problems and tries to solve (and sometimes very damaging ways, though always very well intentioned) them and lies awake at night worrying.

I don't think we should usually protect adults from the truth, but children...things that can cause fear, that I am much more careful on.  With sexual assault and other vulnerable adults, I think it should be a case by case situation...don't treat them like children, but allow them as much control of their lives as you can.

That seems contrary to at least one article of faith, one commandment, one temple recommend question and a whole lot of other Church doctrine.

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I don't know the situation, I don't know the wife and family's situation and how she might have seen it impact her.  I don't know what the sister missionaries asked of the leaders.  

I wish people could be honest in everything, I also know sometimes deception and lying are necessary.

My mother has dementia.  I do not tell her this because I know she fears it and it would interfere with her ability to enjoy life and be independent.  We also do not tell her everything that is happening in the family because she owns everyone's problems and tries to solve (and sometimes very damaging ways, though always very well intentioned) them and lies awake at night worrying.

I don't think we should usually protect adults from the truth, but children...things that can cause fear, that I am much more careful on.  With sexual assault and other vulnerable adults, I think it should be a case by case situation...don't treat them like children, but allow them as much control of their lives as you can.

I think there is a huge difference between you not telling your mother she has dementia and someone going around and sexually abusing others.  Just my opinion.  

When is it proper to tell the truth ever?  When the truth won't hurt anyone?  When evil will not be exposed?  When there are no consequences for being truthful?  Should a young person not tell the truth when they have violated the law of chastity because it will hurt the parents?  Hurt their brothers and sisters?  What is the difference between the two situations. 

[Calm]

 

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think there is a huge difference between you not telling your mother she has dementia and someone going around and sexually abusing others.  Just my opinion.  

When is it proper to tell the truth ever?  When the truth won't hurt anyone?  When evil will not be exposed?  When there are no consequences for being truthful?  Should a young person not tell the truth when they have violated the law of chastity because it will hurt the parents?  Hurt their brothers and sisters?  What is the difference between the two situations. 

I am not going to reduce it to a checklist or a black and white situation, not one I have few facts on.  Life is complicated and where there are victims, they should be treated as individuals and not forced into a one size fits all routine.

Of course there is a huge difference between my mother's situation and the Smartt one, I used my mother because it is pretty much the only situation I am in where I have probably lied, at least actively deceived.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think there is a huge difference between you not telling your mother she has dementia and someone going around and sexually abusing others.  Just my opinion.  

The Church took remedial steps (they immediately released the MP, sent him home, removed him from any interaction with missionaries, excommunicated him, provided the sister missionaries with support and counseling, etc.).  

So the Church did everything it could to stop "someone going around and sexually abusing others."

It's weird that I need to point this out?

Quote

When is it proper to tell the truth ever?  

Telling the truth is pretty much always right.  There are some are-there-Jews-hiding-in-your-attic exceptions that can present a moral conundrum, and sometimes "honesty" may not necesssarily mean "you have a duty to disclose X to people who have no particular need or right to know X," but honesty is pretty much always the way to go.

Quote

When the truth won't hurt anyone?  

Well, that can be a judgment call, can it not?

Quote

When evil will not be exposed?  

The Church immediately removed the MP, sent him home, and excommunicated him.

Quote

When there are no consequences for being truthful?  Should a young person not tell the truth when they have violated the law of chastity because it will hurt the parents?  Hurt their brothers and sisters?  What is the difference between the two situations. 

Perhaps protecting innocent parties (the MP's wife and children, the sister missionaries who wanted to complete their missions without dealing with voyeuristic questions from members, missionaries, strangers, etc.) was the motive.

Perhaps acceding to the wishes of the victims was the motive.

Or perhaps a mistake was made and more candor would have been appropriate.

I don't think we have enough information to go on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 27, 2018 by smac97