(Now Former) Bishop in Draper Charged with Sex Offenses

[smac97]

See here:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/12/13/former-mormon-bishop/

https://kjzz.com/news/local/former-lds-church-bishop-charged-with-sex-abuse-lewdness

https://fox13now.com/2018/12/13/lds-bishop-charged-with-sex-abuse-removed-from-position-in-church/

A few thoughts:

1. If these allegations are true, this is extremely disturbing and disgusting stuff, and I hope the perp is punished to the fullest extent possible.

2. The bishop apparently took one victim out to get milkshakes, and inappropriate conduct occurred during that time.  In other words, the bishop was not chaperoned.

3. In another instance involving another victim, the bishop locked himself and the victim in a car and insisted on having an inappropriate discussion.  Again, the bishop was not chaperoned.

4. In another instance, the bishop visited the victim in his (the victim's) home (entering unannounced, even), and engaged in inappropriate conduct while there.  Again, the bishop was not chaperoned.

5. The bishop was apparently still functioning as a bishop.  The Church released him immediately upon learning about the allegations, and also "took steps to notify authorities and supported their investigation."

In sum, it looks like the bishop was acting way out of bounds for most or all of the misconduct.  Inappropriate touching.  Inappropriate visits.  Not accompanied or chaperoned.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

It's yet another shocking case of abuse of church authority.  I wonder how stake presidents and other leaders can prevent calling these monsters to these positions?  Background checks only go so far but should still be employed.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See here:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/12/13/former-mormon-bishop/

https://kjzz.com/news/local/former-lds-church-bishop-charged-with-sex-abuse-lewdness

https://fox13now.com/2018/12/13/lds-bishop-charged-with-sex-abuse-removed-from-position-in-church/

A few thoughts:

1. If these allegations are true, this is extremely disturbing and disgusting stuff, and I hope the perp is punished to the fullest extent possible.

2. The bishop apparently took one victim out to get milkshakes, and inappropriate conduct occurred during that time.  In other words, the bishop was not chaperoned.

3. In another instance involving another victim, the bishop locked himself and the victim in a car and insisted on having an inappropriate discussion.  Again, the bishop was not chaperoned.

4. In another instance, the bishop visited the victim in his (the victim's) home (entering unannounced, even), and engaged in inappropriate conduct while there.  Again, the bishop was not chaperoned.

5. The bishop was apparently still functioning as a bishop.  The Church released him immediately upon learning about the allegations, and also "took steps to notify authorities and supported their investigation."

In sum, it looks like the bishop was acting way out of bounds for most or all of the misconduct.  Inappropriate touching.  Inappropriate visits.  Not accompanied or chaperoned.

Thanks,

-Smac

So sick  

Are you suggesting that Bishops should be chaperoned when engaging youth in discussions?

[SouthernMo]

Those poor victims. The pain, confusion, and sense of shock they must be experiencing.

Would be so hard for anyone in that position to trust a bishop again.

[bsjkki]

Sad and disturbing. In my ward, many questions were raised after the new two deep policy was introduced about transportation. It was decided no adult should ever provide transportation that would create a one on one situation. I’m not sure there is a church policy that makes this clear. There should be. I’m still disturbed ministering adults can serve as companions for minor, non-related youth. They should also not be one on one. 

This Bishop flaunted the rules so more may not have helped. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So sick  

Are you suggesting that Bishops should be chaperoned when engaging youth in discussions?

Not necessarily.  The bishop in this story went way off the grid in terms of time, place and manner of communications with youth.

It appears that none of the abuse happened while the bishop was conducting interviews in his office.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Sad and disturbing. In my ward, many questions were raised after the new two deep policy was introduced about transportation. It was decided no adult should ever provide transportation that would create a one on one situation. I’m not sure there is a church policy that makes this clear. There should be. I’m still disturbed ministering adults can serve as companions for minor, non-related youth. They should also not be one on one. 

This Bishop flaunted the rules so more may not have helped. 

Yeah, the 2 deep policy is kind of a joke when ministering youth/adult companionships are still a thing. It's institutionalized non-2-deep leadership.

But I really don't think most people would give much of a 2nd thought to a bishop, YM Pres, YW pres, or someone else picking up a youth to have a talk and get a milkshake. It's been a part of the SOP for so long that it will be a challenge to really implement and enforce the 2 deep leadership as there is significant resistance to 100% required 2-deep leadership. As long as their are exceptions, like ministering, or worthiness & other interviews, it will be hard for many to buy in to the 2-deep safety standard.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not necessarily.  The bishop in this story went way off the grid in terms of time, place and manner of communications with youth.

It appears that none of the abuse happened while the bishop was conducting interviews in his office.

Thanks,

-Smac

OK. But bishops meet with youth at other times and in other places. A bishop picking up a youth to have a talk and get a milkshake isn't an unusual or scandalous event. I'm sure it happens all over the church on a weekly basis. But the private interview helps to set the expectation for the youth that it's ok to be alone with the bishop (or any other adult), when it shouldn't be.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK. But bishops meet with youth at other times and in other places.

And two-deep leadership rules should be observed during such incidents.

The only exception, really, is formal bishop's interviews in the bishop's office.  The chaperone waits outside.  That's about the only time one-on-one situations should exist.  And even then the content of the discussions should be very circumspect.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A bishop picking up a youth to have a talk and get a milkshake isn't an unusual or scandalous event.

I don't think it's appropriate.  Apart from the very limited circumstances above, two-deep leadership should be observed with youth.  Pretty much always.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm sure it happens all over the church on a weekly basis.

Not in my ward.  I've never seen that in 13 years (and four bishops).

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But the private interview helps to set the expectation for the youth that it's ok to be alone with the bishop (or any other adult), when it shouldn't be.

So on the one had, you say that a one-on-one trip with the bishop to get a milkshake "isn't an unusual or scandalous event."  But then you turn around and say that "the expectation for the tyouth that it's ok to be alone with the bishop" is something that "shouldn't be [ok]."

Apart from the very limited circumstances above, two-deep leadership should be observed.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK. But bishops meet with youth at other times and in other places. A bishop picking up a youth to have a talk and get a milkshake isn't an unusual or scandalous event. I'm sure it happens all over the church on a weekly basis. But the private interview helps to set the expectation for the youth that it's ok to be alone with the bishop (or any other adult), when it shouldn't be.

I’ve honestly never heard of a bishop going anywhere one-on-one with a youth.  My bishop won’t be alone in the building with youth unless another priesthood holder is present.

I never heard of it happening when I was young and have never known of it happening as an adult. I would be very surprised if this is happening all over the church on a weekly basis. 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And two-deep leadership rules should be observed during such incidents.

agreed

The only exception, really, is formal bishop's interviews in the bishop's office.  The chaperone waits outside.  That's about the only time one-on-one situations should exist.  And even then the content of the discussions should be very circumspect.

Or when a member of the bishopric conducts an interview (we're not only talking about bishops here). And I have encountered other situations where bishops have one-on-one interaction with youth, in places other than the bishops office. The location isn't really as important as the 2-deep leadership.

I don't think it's appropriate.  Apart from the very limited circumstances above, two-deep leadership should be observed with youth.  Pretty much always.

Not in my ward.  I've never seen that in 13 years (and four bishops).

Really? You've never seen a bishop or concerned youth leader take a struggling youth for a burger or a shake? I've had parents call me and tell me their kid is struggling with something, could I come pick him up and talk with him. We'd go get ice cream and talk. In many ways it was great because it was a less formal environment, making it easier for the youth to open up. BUT I agree with you and I wouldn't do this now. 5-10 years ago it wouldn't have been a big deal at all, in fact in might have been a story shared in conference about a loving youth leader reaching out to connect with a wayward youth.

So on the one had, you say that a one-on-one trip with the bishop to get a milkshake "isn't an unusual or scandalous event."  But then you turn around and say that "the expectation for the tyouth that it's ok to be alone with the bishop" is something that "shouldn't be [ok]."

I was suggesting that many in the church would not see it as unusual or scandalous for a bishop to take a youth to get ice cream. Ever been in a situation where you are picking up youth for an activity? You have just the right number of seats to accommodate the youth so you start picking them up. But this isn't 2-deep leadership. Unless there were 2 youth at one house, you may have to pick up one youth first, even if just for 2 minutes.

Have you ever been assigned to home teach with a youth? I was always assigned to youth. That is one-on-one time alone in a car. I was never comfortable with it and I agree that it should stop.

Apart from the very limited circumstances above, two-deep leadership should be observed.  

It's hard for youth to expect that 2-deep leadership is a requirement when there are exceptions to 2-deep leadership. It makes it look like a rule that may not always be important...until stories like the one you posted come to light.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’ve honestly never heard of a bishop going anywhere one-on-one with a youth.  My bishop won’t be alone in the building with youth unless another priesthood holder is present.

Yes, that has been my experience/observation as well.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I never heard of it happening when I was young and have never known of it happening as an adult. I would be very surprised if this is happening all over the church on a weekly basis. 

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’ve honestly never heard of a bishop going anywhere one-on-one with a youth.  My bishop won’t be alone in the building with youth unless another priesthood holder is present.

I never heard of it happening when I was young and have never known of it happening as an adult. I would be very surprised if this is happening all over the church on a weekly basis. 

OK- I'm surprised. I've always seen this kind of one-on-one attention given. It wasn't a big deal and nothing bad ever happened (thank goodness).

My entire adult life I've been assigned a young man as a home teaching companion. That is always one-on-one time while traveling and in some of the rural areas where I've lived there was significant travel. We might drive an hour for one appointment, and yes, probably get a treat on the way home. I agree that this should totally and completely change, which is why I think the church should get rid of the exceptions to the 2-deep leadership rules. Frankly, having these kinds of exceptions puts youth at risk but also the adult who is trying to be a companion/mentor/teacher/leader to the youth.

A higher level of propriety was always required when working with YW. That was perceived as the greater risk. Taking a struggling kid out for ice cream, or taking a companion home teaching seemed to be seen as accepted or even good behavior. Times have changed and so should we.

 

[Avatar4321]

 Wow. If these allegations are true than this guy is really creepy 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

See here:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/12/13/former-mormon-bishop/

https://kjzz.com/news/local/former-lds-church-bishop-charged-with-sex-abuse-lewdness

https://fox13now.com/2018/12/13/lds-bishop-charged-with-sex-abuse-removed-from-position-in-church/

A few thoughts:

1. If these allegations are true, this is extremely disturbing and disgusting stuff, and I hope the perp is punished to the fullest extent possible.

2. The bishop apparently took one victim out to get milkshakes, and inappropriate conduct occurred during that time.  In other words, the bishop was not chaperoned.

3. In another instance involving another victim, the bishop locked himself and the victim in a car and insisted on having an inappropriate discussion.  Again, the bishop was not chaperoned.

4. In another instance, the bishop visited the victim in his (the victim's) home (entering unannounced, even), and engaged in inappropriate conduct while there.  Again, the bishop was not chaperoned.

5. The bishop was apparently still functioning as a bishop.  The Church released him immediately upon learning about the allegations, and also "took steps to notify authorities and supported their investigation."

In sum, it looks like the bishop was acting way out of bounds for most or all of the misconduct.  Inappropriate touching.  Inappropriate visits.  Not accompanied or chaperoned.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok.  So what are you suggesting?  The church has been a bit in the spot light as a result of Sam Young.  I found Sam over the top but had some sympathy to what he said having interacted with LDS Bishops who I think stepped over the bounds of appropriate interviews.  Yet I think those are few and far between.  And as a former bishop I appreciate that bonds I was able to build with the youth in our regular interviews. And I appreciate the good bishops I had as a youth who were never inappropriate in their questions. Two of them were like fathers to me. I stil love them and know I would not be in as good a place as I am now without them in my life.

 

 So this is something I am torn on.

 

 

[10THAmendment]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK. But bishops meet with youth at other times and in other places. A bishop picking up a youth to have a talk and get a milkshake isn't an unusual or scandalous event. I'm sure it happens all over the church on a weekly basis. But the private interview helps to set the expectation for the youth that it's ok to be alone with the bishop (or any other adult), when it shouldn't be.

I've never heard of a bishop doing that before. I don't think that would have flown with people even before sexual misconduct allegations became pretty common.

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok.  So what are you suggesting? 

I'm mostly reporting.

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The church has been a bit in the spot light as a result of Sam Young. 

Yes.

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I found Sam over the top but had some sympathy to what he said having interacted with LDS Bishops who I think stepped over the bounds of appropriate interviews. 

Yes.  But bishop's interviews aren't really implicated here.

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet I think those are few and far between.  And as a former bishop I appreciate that bonds I was able to build with the youth in our regular interviews.

And yet I think bishops are becoming less willing to meet with youth.  Because of despicable things said about them by people like Sam Young.

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And I appreciate the good bishops I had as a youth who were never inappropriate in their questions. Two of them were like fathers to me. I stil love them and know I would not be in as good a place as I am now without them in my life.

 So this is something I am torn on.

I think there will always be some who betray our trust.  The question is whether the Church is ennabling such misconduct.

The Church's current policies regarding two-deep leadership could perhaps need further attention.  And perhaps the youth of the Church should receive some instruction about it, so that they understand and anticipate the need for two-deep leadership (except for one-on-one interviews with the bishop).

Perhaps the ministering program needs to be adjusted.  I dunno.  Statistically, sexual abuse is far more likely to be committed by a family member (such as a father), and yet nobody bats an eye at a father being left alone with his children.  But we are increasingly seeing a perception of men, a presumption that they are sexual predators.  I find that deeply troubling.

So yeah, I'm torn, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

See here:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/12/13/former-mormon-bishop/

https://kjzz.com/news/local/former-lds-church-bishop-charged-with-sex-abuse-lewdness

https://fox13now.com/2018/12/13/lds-bishop-charged-with-sex-abuse-removed-from-position-in-church/

A few thoughts:

1. If these allegations are true, this is extremely disturbing and disgusting stuff, and I hope the perp is punished to the fullest extent possible.

2. The bishop apparently took one victim out to get milkshakes, and inappropriate conduct occurred during that time.  In other words, the bishop was not chaperoned.

3. In another instance involving another victim, the bishop locked himself and the victim in a car and insisted on having an inappropriate discussion.  Again, the bishop was not chaperoned.

4. In another instance, the bishop visited the victim in his (the victim's) home (entering unannounced, even), and engaged in inappropriate conduct while there.  Again, the bishop was not chaperoned.

5. The bishop was apparently still functioning as a bishop.  The Church released him immediately upon learning about the allegations, and also "took steps to notify authorities and supported their investigation."

In sum, it looks like the bishop was acting way out of bounds for most or all of the misconduct.  Inappropriate touching.  Inappropriate visits.  Not accompanied or chaperoned.

Thanks,

-Smac

In Utah (and in LDS communities around the world) is there more public outrage from members over such terrible sexual conduct (by leaders in positions of trust/power) or over a Deadpool poster?  

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/12/12/online-petition-claims/

Do you think the LDS cultural/community needs to do more publically to address this difficult and disgusting issue of abuse within the church?   

BTW, I want to point out that I am not trying to be smug or disrespectful, I think that LDS members do want to protect their own, but I am interested about the cultural aspects behind how members react to certain events/issues. I think it is good that you brought this difficult topic/story up, especially because I think, at times, some people might want to just sweep it under the rug and not discuss it at all.  

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Do you think the LDS cultural/community needs to do more publically to address this difficult and disgusting issue of abuse within the church?   

I think that yes, more needs to be done, but I think we need to broaden that to include the broader community.  This is an issue out of the church as much as it is in the church, yet we still see people choosing to be offended over much smaller issues. 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

I've never heard of a bishop doing that before. I don't think that would have flown with people even before sexual misconduct allegations became pretty common.

When I was a Deacon in the late 1980s, our Bishop asked me to help regularly clean an old woman's yard in our neighborhood.  He picked me up, drove me over to her house, introduced me to her, showed me how to mow the lawn, bought me ice cream on the way home, and dropped me off. 

Nothing unusual happened, but it certainly makes it easy to believe that Bishops taking youth on visits does happen.

 

The comments in the OP are odd because of how often "chaperoning" is mentioned, as if Bishops being chaperoned with the youth is a thing.  Can anyone point to anything in any handbook or manual that says Bishops should be chaperoned with the youth in situations like this? 

As a Scout Leader and youth soccer coach, I can guarantee you that the first thing we are taught is to never, ever be alone with the kids.  Even if we have to talk to them privately (as a Scout Leader), we do so within eye-shot of other adults.  If the Bishops are taught the same thing, where?

[The Nehor]

I hate this world.

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

In Utah (and in LDS communities around the world) is there more public outrage from members over such terrible sexual conduct (by leaders in positions of trust/power) or over a Deadpool poster?  

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/12/12/online-petition-claims/

Do you think the LDS cultural/community needs to do more publically to address this difficult and disgusting issue of abuse within the church?   

BTW, I want to point out that I am not trying to be smug or disrespectful, I think that LDS members do want to protect their own, but I am interested about the cultural aspects behind how members react to certain events/issues. I think it is good that you brought this difficult topic/story up, especially because I think, at times, some people might want to just sweep it under the rug and not discuss it at all.  

Anytime such a thing occurs, outrage is warranted. But I’m not convinced it happens frequently enough to warrant a moral panic, which is what you appear to be suggesting. 

[Storm Rider]

The activities of this particular bishop strongly coincide with the activities of Catholic bishops and other leaders that abused Catholic young men and seminarians - one on one activities outside of Church.

This fellow is a very human individual, not a monster, who abused his position of authority and violated some of the most sacred covenants of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  He is a sinner in the same manner that each of us is a sinner. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The activities of this particular bishop strongly coincide with the activities of Catholic bishops and other leaders that abused Catholic young men and seminarians - one on one activities outside of Church.

This fellow is a very human individual, not a monster, who abused his position of authority and violated some of the most sacred covenants of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  He is a sinner in the same manner that each of us is a sinner. 

And he needs to be punched and kicked repeatedly. Sexual sin is serious. Predatory sexual sin is monstrous.

[Tacenda]

I read the article Smac provided and it had the conversation between the bishop and boy listed word for word, all about masturbation! Maybe the church will tell the bishops to never ask about masturbation again, hopefully.