(Now Former) Bishop in Draper Charged with Sex Offenses

[2BizE]

Anyone who thinks allowing a minor to be alone with a bishop needs to have their morals examined.  The only exception is if the minor in their own son or daughter 

[Ouagadougou]

On 12/13/2018 at 5:20 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I think it has happened more than enough (even within the LDS Churc) to warrant moral outrage.  I just publically see members displaying more outrage over a movie poster...

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

It is interesting to see how this conversation about theodicy is one where God is defended for not interceding because it would limit our agency. Well for those that argue  this point, how then is God still preserving our agency when he does intercede? When we place names on the temple rolls, and God answers those prayers, isn't He then limiting the agency for those people whom He blessed? If not, then why couldn't it have been done in the case where He didn't interceerd?

 

The argument about agency is a double edged sword.

There is the additional problem that allowing one person their agency to harm another often removes the agency of the others they have harmed (as far as we can tell, perhaps it is more about the agency of the spirit in mortality and not the body that has so many limitations attached when others sins....think kids born with drug addictions or birth defects because parents chose to do drugs or those in coma or with brain damage because someone chose to drive impaired).

This is something, imo, which comes down to having faith in God...that mortality, though so limited in my opinion in terms of having true moral agency and authority to choose, still in some fashion contributes to the ultimate expression of free/moral agency all can have.

I think making explanations for an omnipotent God allowing people to do evil by laying it on God allowing their agency is only looking at half the picture as we must take into account the agency of the victims.  

Edited December 16, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think it has happened more than enough (even within the LDS Churc) to warrant moral outrage.  I just publically see members displaying more outrage over a movie poster...

 

I said “moral panic,” not “moral outrage.” If you don’t know the distinction, Google “moral panic.” 

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think making explanations for an omnipotent God allowing people to do evil by laying it on God allowing their agency is only looking at half the picture as we must take into account the agency of the victims.  

When we argue that evil is necessary to preserve free will we also have to ask how God intervening to prevent evil, doesn't have the opposite effect, that of taking away free will.

 

 

[changed]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Each one of is ultimately responsible for our own decisions, for good or ill.  ..

You clearly have your own church.  I wish you well with it.

Yes, each one of us is ultimately responsible for our own decisions.  

There is a diversity of religious beliefs and ethical understandings within each religious community, and throughout the world.  I believe this is through divine design, to allow each individual room for personal inquiry and expression.  

Manmade vs. god-made - mass-produced interchangeable parts, vs. the diversity within nature, within life.  God is the creator of diversity, of free will, of individual testimonies, of all the cultures, languages, and peoples of the world.  

The earth is a beautiful place - no hard feelings for someone who wants to embrace a larger picture?  

Blessings to you on your journey as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

When we argue that evil is necessary to preserve free will we also have to ask how God intervening to prevent evil, doesn't have the opposite effect, that of taking away free will.

 

 

To believe in God is to trust that He knows when, in the long run, it is right to intervene and when it isn’t. 

Edited December 16, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To believe in God is to trust that He knows when, I’m the long run, it is right to intervene and when it isn’t. 

That makes perfect sense.

A test of our free agency is controlled by God.

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To believe in God is to trust that He knows when, in the long run, it is right to intervene and when it isn’t. 

Like when to help someone late for soccer practice find his/her keys, but not to save a life or spare a child from sexual abuse.  Got it.

[Ouagadougou]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I said “moral panic,” not “moral outrage.” If you don’t know the distinction, Google “moral panic.” 

 

If I Google "moral panic," or "outrage" I bet it will probably show how many members are publically "panicking" over a movie poster because they think it is religious discrimination.  Meanwhile, when it comes to innocent kids getting abused by leaders in the church, IMO, it isn't the same public "panic" or "outrage."

[FunOnlineMan]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To believe in God is to trust that He knows when, in the long run, it is right to intervene and when it isn’t. 

Just so I’m clear, when stake presidents are praying for inspiration about who should be the bishop of one of their wards, and they have a child molester in mind, that is NOT the right time to intervene?

[Exiled]

7 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Just so I’m clear, when stake presidents are praying for inspiration about who should be the bishop of one of their wards, and they have a child molester in mind, that is NOT the right time to intervene?

Obviously, one cannot rely on feelings to stop these perverts.  So, how about preventing adult/youth one on one time?  How about stopping the probing interviews?  Abstinence can still be taught in group settings where the youth can get the message without allowing perverts the chance to prey on their victims.  One victim is too many.

[The Nehor]

On 12/16/2018 at 11:16 AM, Exiled said:

Obviously, one cannot rely on feelings to stop these perverts.  So, how about preventing adult/youth one on one time?  How about stopping the probing interviews?  Abstinence can still be taught in group settings where the youth can get the message without allowing perverts the chance to prey on their victims.  One victim is too many.

I agree that we should do all we reasonably can to stop this there is a point where it goes beyond reason. Saying “one victim is too many” implies we should be willing to do literally anything to prevent it.

Cameras on children at all times even when they are at home? Two deep policy maintained universally at all times and all situations including with parents?

It is like automotive deaths. People like to say life is priceless but if it were we would put limiters to keep speeds down to 5 mph on all vehicles to prevent anyone from dying in a collision but we do not.

[FunOnlineMan]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I agree that we should do all we reasonably can to stop this there is a point where it goes beyond reason. Saying “one victim is too many” implies we should be willing to do literally anything to prevent it.

Cameras on children at all times even when they are at home? Two deep policy maintained universally at all times and all situations including with parents?

How about two-deep policy just generally maintained—as a start?

 

[bsjkki]

28 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

How about two-deep policy just generally maintained—as a start?

 

I discussed with a friend who is in a RS Presidency that I feel the new 13 year olds with ministering assignments should be placed with parents...even as a 3rd partner. I don't think 13 year olds of either sex should be partnered with a non-relative or drive alone with non-relatives one on one. This behavior is what got this Bishop in trouble. It is a baseline precaution.  Your are asking ministering partners to develop a relationship, not in a group setting but one on one. It is ripe for abuse even if that abuse is rare. I am struggling with the fact the church carved out an exemption for two deep leadership with the ministering program. It makes no sense to me. Maybe they could keep the exemption if they emphasized that one on one transportation with an adult and a youth should not happen. 

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

How about two-deep policy just generally maintained—as a start?

 

Who would you apply this to? Should I be barred from babysitting my nieces and nephews unless there is another adult present? I suspect uncles are statistically more likely to be predators then bishops.

[FunOnlineMan]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Who would you apply this to? Should I be barred from babysitting my nieces and nephews unless there is another adult present? I suspect uncles are statistically more likely to be predators then bishops.

Honestly, it should be up to parents to decide who is allowed to be alone with their children. Uncles obviously have more cases out there, but I think bishops probably take the per capita column. 

But you’ve set us on a slippery slope, so I’d say yes, it is better to have to be inconvenienced as adults in order to protect children from sexual exploitation by people they are taught to trust. My powers of ethical reasoning have declared it to be so. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by FunOnlineMan

[FunOnlineMan]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I discussed with a friend who is in a RS Presidency that I feel the new 13 year olds with ministering assignments should be placed with parents...even as a 3rd partner. I don't think 13 year olds of either sex should be partnered with a non-relative or drive alone with non-relatives one on one. This behavior is what got this Bishop in trouble. It is a baseline precaution.  Your are asking ministering partners to develop a relationship, not in a group setting but one on one. It is ripe for abuse even if that abuse is rare. I am struggling with the fact the church carved out an exemption for two deep leadership with the ministering program. It makes no sense to me. Maybe they could keep the exemption if they emphasized that one on one transportation with an adult and a youth should not happen. 

Yeah. I just don’t understand how, say, having the second counselor in the bishopric sitting in the corner of the room, just enjoying the spirit or looking at Facebook or whatever, would hinder the work. 

[Exiled]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I agree that we should do all we reasonably can to stop this there is a point where it goes beyond reason. Saying “one victim is too many” implies we should be willing to do literally anything to prevent it.

Cameras on children at all times even when they are at home? Two deep policy maintained universally at all times and all situations including with parents?

It is like automotive deaths. People like to say life is priceless but if it were we would put limiters to keep speeds down to 5 mph on all vehicles to prevent anyone from dying in a collision but we do not.

So nothing should change because trying to prevent bishops like this one from preying on kids necessarily means cameras on children while at home? Does it have to go to the absurd in your mind?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

So nothing should change because trying to prevent bishops like this one from preying on kids necessarily means cameras on children while at home? Does it have to go to the absurd in your mind?

Nehor is the king of absurd  

It's often intentional and quite fun.

[provoman]

On 12/15/2018 at 5:13 PM, 2BizE said:

Anyone who thinks allowing a minor to be alone with a bishop needs to have their morals examined.  The only exception is if the minor in their own son or daughter 

If we change Bishop to:

Police Officer

Firefighter

Teacher

HeadMaster

Long time family friend

baby sitter

 

Does ones morals still need to examined.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

32 minutes ago, provoman said:

If we change Bishop to:

Police Officer

Firefighter

Teacher

HeadMaster

Long time family friend

baby sitter

 

Does ones morals still need to examined.

 

Provoman,

Are you saying that it's ok for police, firefighters, teachers, headmasters to be alone with kids?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

So nothing should change because trying to prevent bishops like this one from preying on kids necessarily means cameras on children while at home? Does it have to go to the absurd in your mind?

If it does not go to the absurd I have failed.  

in this case though while I did go to the absurd it was to illustrate a point that we will allow unlimited supervision of a bishop even to the detriment of his ability to do his job but the idea of doing it to a parent at all is seen as invasive even though per capita parents are more likely to be abusers.

I am okay taking measures to mitigate this evil but I think reason should also apply. I would also add that most of the safeguards suggested would be easy for a perfidious bishop to circumvent.

[Walden]

On 12/13/2018 at 1:10 PM, Exiled said:

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.

I am certain that this individual had inclinations towards sexually predatory thoughts and/or behaviors prior to his calling as a bishop...don't the stake president and other leaders have special powers of discernment via the gift of the Holy Ghost when praying about and receiving inspiration in these callings? How do they then end up calling a predator of this nature to this type of position?

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Walden said:

I am certain that this individual had inclinations towards sexually predatory thoughts and/or behaviors prior to his calling as a bishop...

CFR