In 2013 a mission president was removed for misconduct

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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).

As area president, he shouldn't have fabricated a story that was deceptive

 

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps.

Tkankyou

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Cornish is a very good guy. 

He may very well be a good guy most of the time.  But being deceptive is not an act of a good guy.  We all make mistakes.

 

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You raise a fair point.

Thankyou

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  Why is it "very important?"

Because a sexual sin was committed.  This was not just some white lie.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, that can be true.

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

What her husband did broke a very important trust between him and his wife.  I am sure much damage was done to their relationship.  He has hurt someone he should have cared about.  Part of the repentance process is to repair that damage.  Having the church fabricate a story does not fix that breach of trust.  

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What if one or more of the sister missionaries who were offended asked that the reason not be disclosed? 

There is no reason to mention who he committed his previous sin with.  Anyone who suspects it is a sister missionary or more than one would be just speculating.  He could have committed the indiscretion with the maid, the neighbor, some woman at church.  There is no way this would point directly to the sister missionaries.  Nor should it.  Lying about what happened does not stop idol speculation.

 

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Might they want to finish their missions without having to cope with weird questions and speculations from members and other missionaries?

Yes they might.  Who would ask them weird questions?  Or maybe they might want to confide in a sister they trust.  Knowing that the mission president committed indisgressions would allow that sister to talk about what happened.  Frabricating some cover up story would prevent her from being able to talk to someone.  Everyone deals with these kinds of issues in their own way.  They should be allowed to do that

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Improper behavior" would probably trigger suspicion and gossip about sexual indiscretion. 

Yes it might.  Church leaders should remind the missionaries to not speculate or gossip about what happened

 

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.   

That is a possibility.  Extra caution should be expressed about not doing that to all the missionaries.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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. 

Covering up what the mission president did does not make his actions go away.  Frabricating a story is putting a bandaid over the problem, letting the wound fester and get worse.  Which is where we find ourselves today.

 

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And perhaps this put Elder Cornish into a very difficult situation, such that he focused on one reason to the exclusion of the other.

Telling the truth is sometimes difficult.  We don't just tell the truth when it is convenient.  If that is the standard, then why bother to teach members to tell the truth at all?

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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 take your word that he is a good person.  Even good people make mistakes.  None of us are perfect.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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 not going refrain from adverse conclusions about what happened here.

Thanks,

-Smac

What we do know is very disturbing.  This mission president committed a serious act.  The church made up a cover story that was simply not true.  Now the bandaid has been ripped off the wound.  Many including myself who have a high mistrust for church leaders being truthful once again are reinforced with that message.  A policy of covering up actual events should stop.  It serves no useful purpose.  Breaking the commandments, even when the church leaders do it is against the laws of God.

[Calm]

Quote

Who would ask them weird questions?  

Seriously?  Maybe it is not something that happens as often to guys, but weird questions are a staple of life imo for the least excuse.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.).  

I applaud the church for taking such quick action.  I don't think there is a single person who disagrees with that action.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I don't disagree that this mission president can ever use his position in the church to deceive others.  

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

You didn't.  I agree.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Frabricating a lie did not protect anyone.  The harm had already been done.  It is more like the Jews hiding in our attic are found by the soldiers and then you make up a story that they were just having a picnic up there.  The fabrication does not make the problem go away.

 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

yes.  But in this case there is no justification for fabricating a false story.  I have addressed the reasons why.  This is not some white lie.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Yes you already mentioned that.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

I have already addressed this.  See previous post.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

There was no reason to mention who his victims were.  So there was no reason to fabricate a lie to protect those victims.  I already pointed that out several times.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Yes I think so.  Telling the truth in these kind of serious situations is always the best option.  Making up some false story rarely turns out well.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes.  And I am disappointed in the spin the church put on this story.  Another bandaid.  Another sore covered over.  Church leaders did in fact tell a story that was not true.  Hawkins representing the church reported that they just decieved the missionaries into thinking it was the mission presidents wife's health as the reason for the release.  We know that deception was actually told to the missionaries, not just hinted at.

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seriously?  Maybe it is not something that happens as often to guys, but weird questions are a staple of life imo for the least excuse.

Do women not know the phrase, "None of your business"?  No one is required to divulge personal information.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do women not know the phrase, "None of your business"?  No one is required to divulge personal information.

I will assume it is not a lack of compassion, but a lack of understanding of how vulnerability affects some people that is leading to this response.

[bluebell]

3 hours 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.

In my friends case, she didn’t have any concern that people would blame her. That wasn’t even on her radar. 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

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? 

So how is me not seeking spiritual confirmation of callings before sustaining someone affect any of this?

That’s what we were talking about  

 

[smac97]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

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

What her husband did broke a very important trust between him and his wife.  I am sure much damage was done to their relationship.  He has hurt someone he should have cared about.  Part of the repentance process is to repair that damage.  Having the church fabricate a story does not fix that breach of trust.  

You did not answer my question.  What if the MP's wife specifically asked that the reason not be disclosed?

Quote

Quote

What if one or more of the sister missionaries who were offended asked that the reason not be disclosed? 

There is no reason to mention who he committed his previous sin with.  

I understand that.  But that does not answer my question.  What if one or more of the sister missionaries who were offended asked that the reason not be disclosed? 

Quote

Anyone who suspects it is a sister missionary or more than one would be just speculating.  He could have committed the indiscretion with the maid, the neighbor, some woman at church.  

And yet word gets around.  You served a mission, did you not?  Gossip is not uncommon.  Amongst members, too.

And in any event, what of the (possible) wishes of the victims? 

Quote

There is no way this would point directly to the sister missionaries.  Nor should it.  

Oh, come on.  Gossip.  Missionaries do it.  Members do it.  It's unfortunate, but it happens. 

I served my mission in Taiwan.  I recall an incident which involved two missionaries stationed in a small remote town.  They attended the first day of a two-day ZTM, but were gone the second day.  On a plane back to the States.  Word . . . got around about what they had done.  Within hours.  Rather salacious stuff, to be frank.  How much of it was true?  I don't know.  But it sure would have been humiliating for those two young men to bear if they had remained on the island.  

So, speculating again (since all of us seem to be doing that to some extent), I think it's not only possible, but likely that gossip about the Puerto Rico MP would have gotten around.  And the gossip could have easily ended up with names attached to it.  But unlike the elders sent home from my mission, what if these sister missionaries wanted to stay on the island and complete their missions?  And what if they asked, in furtherance of that objective, that the details of the MP's disgrace be minimized or suppressed?  

It's speculation, but if that is something akin to what happened, then the insistent, years-after-the-fact, declared-in-ignorance requirement for airing the mission's dirty laundry (from someone who would have zero interest in this dirty laundry except that it can be used to make the LDS Church look bad) becomes a bit more . . . circumspect.

Quote

Lying about what happened does not stop idol speculation.

But telling only a portion of what happened apparently did stop idle speculation.  It looks like virtually nobody knew about it until now, years after the fact.

I don't know your real name.  Your online handle is "california boy," so I assume you are A) male, and B) from or residing in California.  Is your failure to give us your real name a "lie?"

Quote

Quote

Might they [the sister missionaries] want to finish their missions without having to cope with weird questions and speculations from members and other missionaries?

Yes they might.  Who would ask them weird questions?  

Oh, come on.  Other missionaries?  Members?

Those two elders who were sent home from my mission created a tremendous scandal.  Both because of what they did, but also because of the gossip and speculation that was left in the wake of their departure.  I suppose it was a good thing that they were not on the island to face it, but the rest of us missionaries (particularly in the vicinity of the town where the missionaries had been located) heard about it.  Word got around.  The missionary work in that little town?  Dead.  The branch?  Decimated.  

Gossip can take on a life of its own.  And when gossip can attach to specific people, and when those specific people are innocent victims of another's misconduct, I can understand why leaders of the Church may have wanted to minimize the risk of such gossip.

Quote

Or maybe they might want to confide in a sister they trust.  

Quite so.  But maybe they might also have asked that the matter be handled as quietly as possible, so they could continue and focus on their missionary work.

Quote

Knowing that the mission president committed indisgressions would allow that sister to talk about what happened.  Frabricating some cover up story would prevent her from being able to talk to someone.

Not really.  The missionaries received counseling, right?

In any event, what if the sister missionaries didn't want the reasons for the MP's departure to be disclosed to the other missionaries and the members?  And what if the wife of the MP asked for similar consideration? 

Quote

 Everyone deals with these kinds of issues in their own way.  They should be allowed to do that.

I agree.  There's no uggestion that the sisters were impeded in any way from coping with this issue in their own way.

The question is: What if "their own way" involved asking the leaders of the Church to minimize disclosures about the departure of the MP?

Quote

Quote

"Improper behavior" would probably trigger suspicion and gossip about sexual indiscretion. 

Yes it might.  Church leaders should remind the missionaries to not speculate or gossip about what happened.

Sure.  But that could just drive the speculation and gossip underground.  

Missionaries are not perfect in their obedience.  Some of that disobedience can be pretty banal and benign.  But when we are talking about the ability of sister missionaries being able to complete their missions by asking that information about the MP's departure be minimized, and feeling like they were listened to, and if the MP's wife asked for similar accommodations, can you perhaps see how this could put someone like Elder Cornish in a tough spot?

Quote

Quote

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.   

That is a possibility.  Extra caution should be expressed about not doing that to all the missionaries.

Sure.  But that doesn't address the possibility under discussion (that the innocent victims of the misconduct may have asked that the matter not be publicized).

Quote

Quote

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. 

Covering up what the mission president did does not make his actions go away.  

Nobody is suggesting that.  The man was immediately released, sent home, and excommunicated.

I'm not sure "covering up" is appropriate here.  A vague explanation about "improper behavior" (your phrase, I believe) could also be characterized as "covering up" what happened.

"Failing to publicize" might be more apt.  

Quote

Frabricating a story is putting a bandaid over the problem, letting the wound fester and get worse.  Which is where we find ourselves today.

I don't see how the wound has "festered" or gotten worse, except that now the MP's wife and children are now having to face multiple news accounds about what the MP did.  I can't imagine how painful and humiliating that could be.  Are you suggesting that this woman and her children would have been better off if this scandal had been publicized years ago?  At least they've had some years to come to terms with what happened, to prepare themselves against the public's voyeurism.

Quote

Quote

And perhaps this put Elder Cornish into a very difficult situation, such that he focused on one reason to the exclusion of the other.

Telling the truth is sometimes difficult.  

I agree.  

But not disclosing the truth, as in not publicizing it, is not necessarily a bad or wrong thing.  Context matters.  Whether or not a person has a duty to disclose information matters.  Whether or not a person as a need or right to know information matters. 

I have no idea what your name is, or where you live, or what your bank account numbers are, or where your children live.  But I have no particular right or need to know such things, right?

So what are your thoughts on that?  Was there a "duty to disclose" by the leaders of the Church?  Was there a "need to know" or a "right to know" what the MP had done?  Who holds this "right?"

You seem to be advocating for some level of discretion, right?  No need to disclose which sister missionaries were abused, or how they were abused, or any other salacious details.  You advocate the exercise of some discretion, yes?  So the question becomes how much discretion.  How much information and explanation.

Quote

We don't just tell the truth when it is convenient.  

RIght.  And sometimes we withold publication of information because there is no specific duty to disclose it.  So information is not published, or not published to everyone, or not published with every detail intact.  How much information would seem to be a matter of real consideration, but it still ends up being a judgment call.

We all do this.  You go by "California Boy."  You withhold information you do not feel obligated to disclose to us, or about which we are not entitled to know.  And that's all fine.

Here, we appear to not have a "lie" as much as an omission of information that may have been considered extremely sensitive, and perhaps not properly for general consumption amongst the missionaries and members (and, possibly, the innocent parties involved may have asked that the information not be publicly disclosed).

There are times when disclosures of otherwise very private information are unavoidable.  Consider the publicized excommunication of Elder Hamula last year.  The Church announced it, but did not provide particular details as to the basis for the excommunication, except to say what it was not about ("The church also confirmed that Tuesday's action was not due to disillusionment or apostasy on the part of Hamula.").  But note also this (from the same link):

Quote

"They're sensitive to that and the moment we're in," Mason said of church leaders. "There are people who would love to see general authorities lose their faith."

Many church members took to social media to express love and support for Hamula and his family and to pledge to pray for them. Some expressed hope that he would rejoin the church in the future. Other people kickstarted baseless speculation, unreliable gossip and base jokes.

"You'll find all kinds of reactions ranging from support for him and his family, which is generous and I think the proper response, especially from church members, to people who are happy any time they see bad news about the church," Mason said.

So . . . yeah.  I think there was plenty of room for "baseless speculation, unreliable gossip and base jokes" as to the MP in Puerto Rico, but that sort of thing didn't happen.  At least not until four years later.  By that time the affected sister missionaries were all returned home and moving on with their lives, and the MP's wife and children are distanced from the MP's appalling behavior.

Quote

Quote

And perhaps this put Elder Cornish into a very difficult situation, such that he focused on one reason to the exclusion of the other.

If that is the standard, then why bother to teach members to tell the truth at all?

Because telling the truth is important.  Always has been, always will be.

But there is not always a duty to disclose every detail.  Even you acknowledge that.

Quote

Quote

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 not going refrain from adverse conclusions about what happened here.

What we do know is very disturbing.  This mission president committed a serious act.  

And we also know that the Church acted immediately in response thereto.  I am sort of flummoxed why you would omit that.  It's a major element of this story.

Quote

The church made up a cover story that was simply not true.  

You don't know that.  We don't have all the facts.  We also don't know about what requests, if any, were made of the leaders of the church by innocent parties who were harmed by the MP's misconduct.

Quote

Now the bandaid has been ripped off the wound.  

Which wound, perhaps contrary to your characterization, has had time to heal, rather than fester.

Quote

Many including myself who have a high mistrust for church leaders being truthful once again are reinforced with that message.  

I understand that.  But the excommunication of a mission president in Puerto Rico four years ago has zero relevance to you, except that you want to use it to make the Church look bad.

Again, the Church took immediate action.  It heard about the misconduct, flew someone out immediately, released the MP immediately, sent him home immediately, excommunicated him immediately, and provided ongoing counsel to his wife, his children, and the sister missionaries who were affected.

But none of that matters to people like you.  Endless faultfinding is the order of the day.

There is no satisfying people like you.  Ever.

Quote

A policy of covering up actual events should stop.  

"Covering up" = "Not shouting from the rooftops."

Quote

It serves no useful purpose.  

To you, perhaps.  But it's none of your business, really.  You had no right to know.  Not knowing the details of what the MP did didn't affect you in the slightest.  It was also not my business, nor did it affect me.  In fact, I have a fairly hard tie conceptualizing what group of people had a need or right to know the details of what a mission president in Puerto Rico did four years ago.

In contrast, not publicizing the MP's misconduct may well have had a very useful purpose to people who stood to be substantially affected by it.

Quote

Breaking the commandments, even when the church leaders do it is against the laws of God.

I quite agree with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 28, 2018 by smac97

[Duncan]

I would like to know how the Church compares to other organizations when it comes to abuse and misconduct. My bro and I were just discussing the old days of the WWF and AWA and talked about this guy 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Zumhofe

 

It seems like he was in trouble several times but he kept getting his job back until the final nail on his coffin, like he kept doing this stuff and they kept re-hiring him!!!!!

[california boy]

I remember sitting on my bed when I was about 12 years old.  My father sitting across from me.  I had told a lie because it was easier to lie than to be honest and face the truth.  He recited to me this phrase, "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive". He explained to me the importance of telling the truth, even when doing so was difficult.  That when we lie, others loose trust in our integrity.  And that once lost, it is very difficult to get that integrity back.  If you lie enough, then people will never trust what you say.  For some reason that lesson stuck with me.  And as I have gotten older, I. have gotten an even deeper understanding of what he met.

Long ago, church leaders told me certain things that were just not true.  That simple untruth changed the course of my life. For a long time, the lie was not apparent.  It seemed that no harm would come from such an untruth.  But time has a way of revealing truth.   The deception was eventually revealed.  My life, the life of my wife and family eventually was significantly impacted by that misleading promise.  

Some would say those church leaders were only trying to fix things.  Some would point out that there was no maliciousness in what they were trying to do.  Some would say that they lacked understanding.  That might all be true.  But it didn't change the fact that what they promised me was false.  In recent years a great deal has been found out about the church presenting a narrative that was not the complete truth.  Things were implied that was not accurate.  Narratives were whitewashed.  Events were hidden.  People were misled.  That kind of deception has lead to a crisis for many people.  Many families have been devastated by that deception.  Few people have not been impacted in some way by what happened.  Many have lost their faith.  That trust has been broken. They have felt betrayed and deceived. Many have left the church.

Now we have been discussing something much more current. Something that happened after the hard lesson of past deceptions.  Yeah church leaders continued in the same path as before.  Missionaries who trusted the church that what they were told was true have now found out that once again, the tool the church used was deception because the truth would have been difficult.  Some say too difficult.

I have explained why I have issues with what the church has done for a couple of pages now.  I think I have been clear on why what the church did was wrong.  I think it is a shame that this deception tactic continues to be used in the church to hide truth from members.  Some are willing to embrace this way of doing things.  That lying for the Lord is justified.  They probably don't have any problems with past deceptions.  So why would this one be a problem.  But for some, like me, it just reinforces an attitude and a lack of integrity in how the church operates.  It is not acceptable to us.  Those who have lost trust in the church are angry that it still goes on.  

I am no longer a member of the church.  Many who have also felt betrayed are no longer a member of the church.  Those who have no problem with this kind of deception continue on.  It doesn't bother them one bit.  They defend deception as something the Lord would condone because telling the truth is sometimes difficult and people can't always handle the truth. I think we will leave it at that.  After a couple of pages of explaining why I personally have a problem with what the church continues to do, there is nothing more I need to say.  I will leave the thread and let those who support this deception to carry on.

[Calm]

CB, I get your life experiences push you to consider telling the truth as utmost importance.  Me, I started from the position of not lying, being completely open and transparent and have moved towards total truth isn't always the best, in part because it changes, in part because I see people needing space and time to adjust to new, deeply personal and painful realities without having to worry about others' reactions, including trying to spare others the pain of feeling sorrow for them (other people's sympathetic suffering sometimes can feel helpful because it shows they care, but often it is a burden to see others hurting for you when your own hurt feels too much to bear if you are someone who wants to help others even before helping oneself).

The wife had just been diagnosed with MS, she had gone back to the US for surgery (improperly diagnosed) because the medical treatment was considered not high enough standard and the US doctors discovered it was MS.  It is quite possible that she would have had to remain in the US for sometime in order to find out what medications and therapy were best suited for her.  If I were her, no way would I have trusted the doctors that had intended on opening her up.

Therefore it is quite possible it was a partial truth.  She had MS, she needed treatment, she needed to be in the US.  It sounds like she needed to leave the mission.

That her husband's infidelity guaranteed he was leaving at the same time was a huge gap in public knowledge, but I think to say it wouldn't have happened the identical way (them both leaving the mission at that time) and therefore it must be a major lie is an unproved assumption (I recognize assuming he would have left is also an assumption, but given the Church's reaction in the case of regular couple missionaries with health issues in my experience, I think it is an well founded assumption).

As far as others being future victims, granted this was not announced in Puerto Rico...but he was no longer in Puerto Rico.  In the US he was excommunicated and from what I understand was relatively quickly separated from his wife.  Since the offenses didn't happen in the US, no criminal charges could have been brought and from what I read about Puerto Rico, it sounds like they wouldn't have been brought there or at least prosecuted even if he had been reported (a wealthy American who would have happily bribed his way out of trouble).

So I see no prevention of harm in terms of future victims by announcing it when it comes to Puerto Rico.  I see it as possible that someone in the US might googled him and picked up the info he had morality issues if they had announced he was being released for that as can happen now from his info on that dating site and due to his larceny charges being made public.  But I also find it problematic to make decisions based on uncertain possibilities over certainties.  Judging the possibility of future victims as being more important than taking care of his actual victims...if this was the reason the choice was made to only share his wife's MS difficulties, I support that.  Reality over possibility...that is going to likely win it for me every time unless the possibility is extremely high and obviously worse than the current reality.  I know it is very important to try and stop there being future victims, but I don't rate it as higher than helping the already damaged victims in the best way possible (and I think it is their right to decide that).

Because it is a high possibility imo that his wife and at least some of the sister missionaries asked that the information not be shared, I don't think we have currently enough information to form a judgment of right and wrong.  Nor do I see it as appropriate we demand it.  You see potential harm coming from the silence about half of the story of them coming home, I see potential harm coming from being vocal.  You base your judgment on the pain that happened in your life when the truth was not fully known, I based my judgment on the pain that I have seen in friends and family when privacy was not respected.  

I don't think you are a villain or even unreasonable for wanting people to be protected in the best possible way, we just see how that is likely best accomplished differently.

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I remember sitting on my bed when I was about 12 years old.  My father sitting across from me.  I had told a lie because it was easier to lie than to be honest and face the truth.  He recited to me this phrase, "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive". He explained to me the importance of telling the truth, even when doing so was difficult.  That when we lie, others loose trust in our integrity.  And that once lost, it is very difficult to get that integrity back.  If you lie enough, then people will never trust what you say.  For some reason that lesson stuck with me.  And as I have gotten older, I. have gotten an even deeper understanding of what he met.

Long ago, church leaders told me certain things that were just not true.  That simple untruth changed the course of my life. For a long time, the lie was not apparent.  It seemed that no harm would come from such an untruth.  But time has a way of revealing truth.   The deception was eventually revealed.  My life, the life of my wife and family eventually was significantly impacted by that misleading promise.  

Some would say those church leaders were only trying to fix things.  Some would point out that there was no maliciousness in what they were trying to do.  Some would say that they lacked understanding.  That might all be true.  But it didn't change the fact that what they promised me was false.  In recent years a great deal has been found out about the church presenting a narrative that was not the complete truth.  Things were implied that was not accurate.  Narratives were whitewashed.  Events were hidden.  People were misled.  That kind of deception has lead to a crisis for many people.  Many families have been devastated by that deception.  Few people have not been impacted in some way by what happened.  Many have lost their faith.  That trust has been broken. They have felt betrayed and deceived. Many have left the church.

Now we have been discussing something much more current. Something that happened after the hard lesson of past deceptions.  Yeah church leaders continued in the same path as before.  Missionaries who trusted the church that what they were told was true have now found out that once again, the tool the church used was deception because the truth would have been difficult.  Some say too difficult.

I have explained why I have issues with what the church has done for a couple of pages now.  I think I have been clear on why what the church did was wrong.  I think it is a shame that this deception tactic continues to be used in the church to hide truth from members.  Some are willing to embrace this way of doing things.  That lying for the Lord is justified.  They probably don't have any problems with past deceptions.  So why would this one be a problem.  But for some, like me, it just reinforces an attitude and a lack of integrity in how the church operates.  It is not acceptable to us.  Those who have lost trust in the church are angry that it still goes on.  

I am no longer a member of the church.  Many who have also felt betrayed are no longer a member of the church.  Those who have no problem with this kind of deception continue on.  It doesn't bother them one bit.  They defend deception as something the Lord would condone because telling the truth is sometimes difficult and people can't always handle the truth. I think we will leave it at that.  After a couple of pages of explaining why I personally have a problem with what the church continues to do, there is nothing more I need to say.  I will leave the thread and let those who support this deception to carry on.

Thank you, again, for sharing your perspective. I am grateful for it. 

I want to be clear that my next comment is not an argument against honesty and likely a potential thread-jack:

The real problem for me in this argument is that not only do different people understand "the truth" differently, they also have different standards for the specifics about when honesty is best and when partial truths can be justified. 

"Born Gay" comes to mind. No firm scientific data supporting this. But most LGBT folks don't have any qualms about using it. "Sexual orientation can't change" is another untruth that is popular. These lies help bolster legal arguments for legalizing same sex marriage and making any efforts to help people live their religious beliefs illegal. They may be based in partial truths, but they are false and intentionally deceptive. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

21 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

Which is why we stopped announcing the results of disciplinary councils in Priesthood meetings. 

[Duncan]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which is why we stopped announcing the results of disciplinary councils in Priesthood meetings. 

oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! shots fired!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was never disfellowshipped or anything of the sort!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! shots fired!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was never disfellowshipped or anything of the sort!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. Just to clarify, I was bouncing off your comment and making a general observation  on why a policy and practice that was discontinued years ago was inappropriate, not on anything personal about you. As you properly said, such things are “not meant [for] public consumption.” Personal things should not be broadcasted, but here we see a person’s sins being shouted from the rooftops. It’s not the Church’s job to do the shouting.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Duncan]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sorry. Just to clarify, I was bouncing off your comment and making a general observation  on why a policy and practice that was discontinued years ago was inappropriate, not on anything personal about you. As you properly said, such things are “not meant [for] public consumption.” Personal things should not be broadcasted, but here we see a person’s sins being shouted from the rooftops. It’s not the Church’s job to do the shouting.

oh hahahahahhahahaha! it's fine!

[Tacenda]

Maybe this has already been discussed, but it dawned on me that if the sister missionaries chose not to press charges, that tells me this mission president did something illegal. Since buying gifts and letting them ride in his plane isn't illegal. 

[old lady]

Just a thought from an old lady.  My daughter has MS, the diagnosis was like a death sentence to her.  STRESS makes it much worse. Philanderer's wife's health could have been a compelling reason

for not publicizing this as well as the other reasons mentioned.  I'm sure there were many factors to consider.  I have a child who was in Smartt II mission in California.  He was very strict, had wierd ideas, upset quite a few missionaries. The senior

missionary couple in his mission came home and when asked about him said he was a "horses patoot".  Sad that so much has happened to this family and extended family. 

[SouthernMo]

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

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

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

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

[Calm]

14 hours ago, old lady said:

Just a thought from an old lady.  My daughter has MS, the diagnosis was like a death sentence to her.  STRESS makes it much worse. Philanderer's wife's health could have been a compelling reason

for not publicizing this as well as the other reasons mentioned.  I'm sure there were many factors to consider.  I have a child who was in Smartt II mission in California.  He was very strict, had wierd ideas, upset quite a few missionaries. The senior

missionary couple in his mission came home and when asked about him said he was a "horses patoot".  Sad that so much has happened to this family and extended family. 

Very sorry about your daughter (my daughter has multiple issues, we just got a little miracle we were so not expecting with successful ECT treatment, maybe some day she will be able have a job, drive a car, meet people besides family and a few friends, get her GED), stress is big in many disorders, but I hear with MS it is very significant.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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

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

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

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

I think you are engaging in gossip.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are engaging in gossip.

Do we know why this story came out now (5 years later)?  I'm not saying I agree with SouthernMo, but it's understandable to wonder about it and that is one possible explanation. 

Why publish this story now?  (I haven't followed it closely, so there may have been good reason to publish a story about it so many years after the fact.)

Edited May 1, 2018 by ALarson

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are engaging in gossip.

If I am, I don't mean to.  I'm just wondering (and maybe speculating out loud) why this became a story today.

Do you, or does anyone know?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do we know why this story came out now (5 years later)?  I'm not saying I agree with SouthernMo, but it's understandable to wonder about it and that is one possible explanation. 

Why publish this story now?  (I haven't followed it closely, so there may have been good reason to publish a story about it so many years after the fact.)

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

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If I am, I don't mean to.  I'm just wondering (and maybe speculating out loud) why this became a story today.

Do you, or does anyone know?

I can see no reason why this story came out now (5 years later).  So your thoughts are a possible explanation.  Or maybe it's just a coincidence regarding what's going on with the church and the Joseph Bishop story.  It is odd that out of the blue, this story appears though so many years after it happened.  Maybe someone else was about to expose it, so the SL Trib got out in front of it?  Kind of curious though...I agree.

(And, welcome to the forum!!!   )

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by ALarson