(Now Former) Bishop in Draper Charged with Sex Offenses

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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.

Don't hold your breath on this wish. As you know, the church believes that sexual purity, as it defines it, is a high priority, and devotes a high percentage of youth lessons to the subject. It used to be, if not still, the sin next to murder.

[Tacenda]

Interesting how KSL left out details on the LDS abuse case vs. the Catholic abuse case. Sad all around that this exists by clergymen, scary. ETA: But they included in the article that he was an LDS bishop, so oops.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Tacenda

[ttribe]

5 hours 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. 

Nope.  Definitely, a monster.  He didn't just use a swear word; he sexually abused children.  That meets my definition of "monster" every single time.

[Thinking]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

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).

This.

As I was reading this thread I was wondering how many of the youth know and understand the two deep policy.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Thinking

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Nope.  Definitely, a monster.  He didn't just use a swear word; he sexually abused children.  That meets my definition of "monster" every single time.

If he is guilty.  Given the charges and specifics, I think it is highly likely, but his lawyer stated this (first link in OP):

Quote

“We were surprised that he was charged,” he said. “There is a huge disparity between what the state is alleging and what we believe actually occurred.”

That is a strange way of saying "my client is innocent", it comes across as "he is only guilty of some of the stuff charged".  That might be because the reporter didn't included more forceful wording the lawyer provided though.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Calm

[rchorse]

The handbook does advise against this sort of thing.

Quote

7.4 Protecting against Misunderstandings

When a member of a bishopric or stake presidency or another assigned leader meets with a child, youth, or woman, he or she should ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to be present during the interview. Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood.

Meeting with children, youth or women without a parent or other adult nearby is not allowed. That has been the case for at least the last 10 years. Given that the abuse happened in 2016, I doubt this bishop really cared about following church policy. If someone is willing to break the commandments in such a grievous way, though, I doubt there's any policy or procedure that will prevent 100% of abuse.

Edited December 14, 2018 by rchorse

[FunOnlineMan]

Policy and procedure violations aside, we have to assume he was called of god to be a bishop.

[rchorse]

What does that have to do with anything? I think it's pretty clearly established that being called of God does not mean that God will prevent a person from doing bad things or succumbing to temptation. One need only look at Judas. He was quite literally called by God, and he still did bad things. Same with David, Saul and many others. If being called of God is a real thing, then it clearly doesn't mean God will not allow the person to do bad things after being called.

Really, the only way this argument can make any sense is to take it to the end conclusion that no one is called of God and there is no God because bad things happen in the world.

This whole line of argument is so tired I just can't bring myself to give it any more energy. 

[FunOnlineMan]

 

1 hour ago, rchorse said:

This whole line of argument is so tired I just can't bring myself to give it any more energy. 

It seems we agree

[phaedrus ut]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,-Smac

The article does mention

Quote

 

The teen said that Head once locked him inside a car while sitting in the youth’s driveway so they could discuss sex.

“We have to figure this masturbation thing out,” Head allegedly told the teen. “You’re not leaving until we figure this out.”

 

The Bishop is using his knowledge obtained through sexual interview questions to manipulate the youth into situations like this.  This is how predatory grooming works. It's too bad these isn't a grass roots organization advocating to protect LDS children.  

Phaedrus 

 

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Policy and procedure violations aside, we have to assume he was called of god to be a bishop.

No, we don't.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

The article does mention

The Bishop is using his knowledge obtained through sexual interview questions to manipulate the youth into situations like this.  This is how predatory grooming works. It's too bad these isn't a grass roots organization advocating to protect LDS children.  

Phaedrus 

 

Yes, my thoughts exactly!

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Exiled said:

Don't hold your breath on this wish. As you know, the church believes that sexual purity, as it defines it, is a high priority, and devotes a high percentage of youth lessons to the subject. It used to be, if not still, the sin next to murder.

While sexual sin is serious the scripture that puts it next to murder was specific instruction to Corianton who appears to have committed adultery (or possibly fornication) with a prostitute or (if you believe Nibley’s take) participated in some kind of fertility orgy.

Generalizing that statement to all sexual sin seems most unwise. I do not believe porn usage or other sexual slips (which are sins) to be comparable to murder or committing adultery based on that scripture.

Edit: My usual divide between sexual sin and SEXUAL SIN near to MURDER is how predatory it is. It seems to work pretty well. It also works well in other sin contexts to find out how predatory the sin is to determine seriousness.

Edited December 14, 2018 by The Nehor

[Maestrophil]

4 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Policy and procedure violations aside, we have to assume he was called of god to be a bishop.

Just as we have to assume David of the OT was called as a prophet and King, but fell mightily.

 

Plus - assuming does not necessarily make it so.  🙂

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Policy and procedure violations aside, we have to assume he was called of god to be a bishop.

[ttribe]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

If he is guilty.  Given the charges and specifics, I think it is highly likely, but his lawyer stated this (first link in OP):

That is a strange way of saying "my client is innocent", it comes across as "he is only guilty of some of the stuff charged".  That might be because the reporter didn't included more forceful wording the lawyer provided though.

Fair enough.  But, assuming he is guilty, my opinion is he is a predator and a monster, not a simple "sinner" like the rest of us.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Fair enough.  But, assuming he is guilty, my opinion is he is a predator and a monster, not a simple "sinner" like the rest of us.

Especially since that pervert has changed lives for these boys heading into the future, and not for the better. They'll hopefully get some therapy.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

The article does mention

The Bishop is using his knowledge obtained through sexual interview questions to manipulate the youth into situations like this.  This is how predatory grooming works. It's too bad these isn't a grass roots organization advocating to protect LDS children.  

Phaedrus 

 

A thousand times, THIS!  The segregated thinking going on by many of the faithful is mind boggling.

Assuming this man's guilt (nod to Calm), he was able to get himself into these situations because of a culture crafted around a policy that says it is okay for a Church leader to discuss things of a sexual nature with youth in private, one-on-one, settings.  Until that is stopped, this path remains open to those who would exploit it.

Oh, and no more, "but a parent is, statistically, the more likely predator" nonsense.  I, as a parent, AM NOT ABUSING MY CHILDREN.  Therefore, I am duty bound and committed to protecting my children from the next available path of a predator and it just so happens to be the one being maintained by THE CHURCH.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

A thousand times, THIS!  The segregated thinking going on by many of the faithful is mind boggling.

Assuming this man's guilt (nod to Calm), he was able to get himself into these situations because of a culture crafted around a policy that says it is okay for a Church leader to discuss things of a sexual nature with youth in private, one-on-one, settings.  Until that is stopped, this path remains open to those who would exploit it.

Oh, and no more, "but a parent is, statistically, the more likely predator" nonsense.  I, as a parent, AM NOT ABUSING MY CHILDREN.  Therefore, I am duty bound and committed to protecting my children from the next available path of a predator and it just so happens to be the one being maintained by THE CHURCH.

It is not nonsense. It is a much more pervasive problem and I see the fallout all the time and it is much more pervasive then that engendered by Bishops or even other clergy sex abuse.

[FunOnlineMan]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not nonsense. It is a much more pervasive problem and I see the fallout all the time and it is much more pervasive then that engendered by Bishops or even other clergy sex abuse.

Yet, slight policy changes could drastically reduce the availability for monsters to harm children. Regardless of there being greater woes in the world, the church could maybe just make these common sense moves because they’re the right thing to do. Despite the existence of greater problems with more complicated solutions.

Edited December 14, 2018 by FunOnlineMan
s

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

The article does mention

The Bishop is using his knowledge obtained through sexual interview questions to manipulate the youth into situations like this.  This is how predatory grooming works. It's too bad these isn't a grass roots organization advocating to protect LDS children.  

Phaedrus 

 

Bingo...it is  shame that we excommunicate people who want to protect children!

[ttribe]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not nonsense. It is a much more pervasive problem and I see the fallout all the time and it is much more pervasive then that engendered by Bishops or even other clergy sex abuse.

It is a pervasive problem; you are right.  However, it is a nonsense counter to the argument that the Church should get its house in order.  These issues are not mutually exclusive; they can both be addressed.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It is a pervasive problem; you are right.  However, it is a nonsense counter to the argument that the Church should get its house in order.  These issues are not mutually exclusive; they can both be addressed.

Not really. Abusing your children is easy to get away with and there are few ways to catch someone doing it if they are at all smart about it or are just lucky. Same with a Bishop in most cases. If policy were followed it would be very rare. Problem is that a Bishop who wants to abuse kids will not follow policy.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Not really. Abusing your children is easy to get away with and there are few ways to catch someone doing it if they are at all smart about it or are just lucky. Same with a Bishop in most cases. If policy were followed it would be very rare. Problem is that a Bishop who wants to abuse kids will not follow policy.

You don't see one-on-one interviews where church leaders are encouraged to ask youth about their sexual activities (if any) as a dangerous open path of grooming by predators?  And, you think that if the Church dispenses with the current policy that somehow we are magically taking away resources from the fight against child abuse by parents?  Do I have that correct?  Because those are the things I'm arguing and you seem hell bent on arguing against my positions.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You don't see one-on-one interviews where church leaders are encouraged to ask youth about their sexual activities (if any) as a dangerous open path of grooming by predators?  And, you think that if the Church dispenses with the current policy that somehow we are magically taking away resources from the fight against child abuse by parents?  Do I have that correct?  Because those are the things I'm arguing and you seem hell bent on arguing against my positions.

I think it could be used as a path to grooming but it is also a path to repentance and is necessary though precautions including having another adult around or allowing a teen to ask a trusted adult to join them are both good roadblocks to predation.

I do not want to take away the ability of a child or teen to speak to a trusted spiritual leader about abuse in the home one on one if they wish. Parents who want to be in all interviews with their child are usually doing it out of concern but if I was an abusive parent I would do the same thing. One thing I learned from CPS workers I have worked with is that for a child to come forward with something like that they need to be comfortable with the person they are speaking to and the abuser should not be in the room if there is any legal way to make that happen.

That is my concern with overly monitoring bishops. That abusive parents will leverage this to insist on being present in all interviews to silence their own children about their misdeeds.  

Sorry if I just came across as being contrary to be contrary.

Edited December 14, 2018 by The Nehor