Abuse Hotline Article

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quoted for Truth

I wonder why the church bails and pays out the money without a fight? Because they sure don't pay to missionaries' kidnappers. I personally know of a situation where this ladies son was on a mission in Africa and kidnapped and the church wouldn't pay. Luckily it had a happy ending, but I realize why the church cannot though, because then more missionaries would be kidnapped. So maybe if they wouldn't pay out so quickly and make the people hire attorneys etc. then less people would sue. Not saying they don't deserve it if the church were in the wrong though. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why the church bails and pays out the money without a fight? Because they sure don't pay to missionaries' kidnappers. I personally know of a situation where this ladies son was on a mission in Africa and kidnapped and the church wouldn't pay. Luckily it had a happy ending, but I realize why the church cannot though, because then more missionaries would be kidnapped. So maybe if they wouldn't pay out so quickly and make the people hire attorneys etc. then less people would sue. Not saying they don't deserve it if the church were in the wrong though. 

Yeah, kidnapping is a different situation. You pay and you are declaring open season on missionaries. Same reason governments generally do not negotiate with terrorists.

The Church does fight some lawsuits. The problem is that sometimes it costs more to fight it and you have to assess your chances of winning. Even if you are in the right sometimes it is more likely you will lose depending on the situation. I would rather the Church spend less on a settlement then a lot more on a court case and lose. And yes, sometimes the Church's representatives screw up and should lose in which case a settlement is the best move.

Edited May 8, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

I think by watering down I meant becoming the Community of Christ not becoming a non-Christian religion.

I do not see it happening.  Mostly because I feel the Spirit empowering this work and have a testimony that this is the stone that will roll out of the mountain and cover the whole earth.

Even from a secular standpoint it would be a bad move. Becoming the Community of Christ does not appear to be a winning strategy in terms of conversion and growth. Again, I say that from a cold strategy standpoint but I do not think one should choose their religious beliefs based on what will "put butts in the seats". If I had a witness of the Community of Christ I would go there even if they looked to be withering away.

[changed]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that the fringe policy statements, rare abuse cases, and stuff that makes the news is somehow the center of the church is misleading. I have talked to people who assume that we must talk about homosexuality regularly after Prop 8 when I probably hear a lesson on Chastity once a year if that and it usually does not mention homosexuality. These things do not define us nor are they at the center of our faith. It is just the stuff that makes the news.

I am convinced you are absolutely and utterly wrong that we are transmuting to a watered down secular faith with a restorationist mythology.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-secular-life/201905/secularization-hits-the-mormons?fbclid=IwAR1uMhhS5pT5J_P9P70mDSLxZR_0pN2ChamyyA2lpXCVUsG16sNd_mnAl1w

Just started a new thread to talk through the #'s

[Steve-o]

20 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I predict that changes to this process and/or instituting background checks for all members who work with youth or children will be the next big policy change that everyone will get excited about. There will be a collective palm to forehead movement as everyone says "ah yes. It makes perfect sense. Why didn't we do this 30 years ago?"

Pres. Nelson is making some really good changes. A lot of them feel like low-hanging fruit so I think this one fits that category. No one will be upset about the church taking actions to protect youth and children. It will be praised as prophetic change.

Start the countdown clock!

You thought everyone would agree. Ha!

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, Steve-o said:

You thought everyone would agree. Ha!

Touché

[Tacenda]

Noticed the previous thread about this was shut down. But recently listened to the actual women that showed up during F&T meeting in West Virginia and warning ward members about the pedophile in their ward. At first I didn't agree with how they did it, but after hearing their stories, maybe that ward needed it. It sounds like it was a very unhealthy ward. https://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/291-your-children-are-not-safe-alice-koivu-kelly-plante/

And some of the church's lawyers were very immature and making fun of the parents during their testimony in court. Sad lot they are. 

Edited May 22, 2019 by Tacenda

[changed]

https://fox13now.com/2019/05/16/woman-who-disrupted-lds-general-conference-to-go-on-trial/

Woman who disrupted LDS General Conference to go on trial: https://fox13now.com/2019/05/16/woman-who-disrupted-lds-general-conference-to-go-on-trial/

,,,"My Trial will be at the SLC Justice court on May 23rd a 9am in Courtroom 4. To my understanding, this could be dismissed at my Pre-trial next Tuesday or before the Trial next Thursday but I'm inviting those that would like to come support in the case this doesn't get immediately dismissed. There will be a press conference held at 1pm MT at the plaza at the SLC library afterwards ..." 

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, changed said:

"My Trial will be at the SLC Justice court on May 23rd a 9am in Courtroom 4. [...]"

Doesn't look like there will be a trial now that SLC prosecutors have reduced the charge from a misdemeanor to an infraction.

Apparently this is their standard practice for anyone who has committed a misdemeanor when the city isn't seeking jail time. It's just faster, cheaper, easier to give them a fine and then move on (link).

 

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

At first I didn't agree with how they did it, but after hearing their stories, maybe that ward needed it.

Unless there is a literal fire or some other immediate physical threat, nobody "needs" to have their religious worship services interrupted. 

I could never even imagine doing something similar...to anyone; it's completely unconscionable.

We should respect people's right to worship regardless of how much you may think those people - be they Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, or otherwise - need to hear your message. 

 

Quote

And some of the church's lawyers were very immature and making fun of the parents during their testimony in court. Sad lot they are. 

I'm not an attorney, but I've been to court enough times to know that attorneys aren't generally permitted to 'mak[e] fun of [people] during their testimony in court.' 

Such behavior would most assuredly not be considered appropriate, and I don't know any judge who would tolerate it. Would you happen to have a reference for this?

 

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

At first I didn't agree with how they did it, but after hearing their stories, maybe that ward needed it. It sounds like it was a very unhealthy ward.

That is their perception which is unlikely the reality.  And the more emotional investment, the less realistic the perception often is, imo, from any position.

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And some of the church's lawyers were very immature and making fun of the parents during their testimony in court. Sad lot they are. 

Do you have actual quotes or is this just the perception of those parents?  I can imagine if I was being cross examined about my credibility and errors were being pointed out, I might feel I was being ridiculed when it was not...though I would assume lawyers would use language that would emphasize error to be more persuasive, rub the jurors' noses in it so to speak. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Doesn't look like there will be a trial now that SLC prosecutors have reduced the charge from a misdemeanor to an infraction.

Apparently this is their standard practice for anyone who has committed a misdemeanor when the city isn't seeking jail time. It's just faster, cheaper, easier to give them a fine and then move on (link).

 

Unless there is a literal fire or some other immediate physical threat, nobody "needs" to have their religious worship services interrupted. 

I could never even imagine doing something similar...to anyone; it's completely unconscionable.

We should respect people's right to worship regardless of how much you may think those people - be they Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, or otherwise - need to hear your message. 

 

I'm not an attorney, but I've been to court enough times to know that attorneys aren't generally permitted to 'mak[e] fun of [people] during their testimony in court.' 

Such behavior would most assuredly not be considered appropriate, and I don't know any judge who would tolerate it. Would you happen to have a reference for this?

 

 

I'll edit and put in the time stamp on the podcast, if I get time today. ETA: Approx: 46 minutes in.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I'll edit and put in the time stamp on the podcast, if I get time today.

Thank you, that would be nice. 

[Amulek]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'll edit and put in the time stamp on the podcast, if I get time today. ETA: Approx: 46 minutes in.

The only example provided is this: a parent is reading notes from their child's therapist and sniffles. Somebody asks if the parent is ill / coming down with something, and the church's lawyer says the individual is emotional because of the document. 

To me, that doesn't exactly sound like Statler and Waldorf; it sounds like an accurate observation / statement of fact.

The other mother, around the 52 minute mark, also characterizes the church's attorneys as...an expletive and immature. Apparently two of the church's attorneys (one of which was local council) were "respectful," and by respectful it sounds like she means they were nice to her (and her daughter) on the stand and didn't surprise them with anything. In other words, they were the attorneys designated to take the "friendly" (as opposed to "adversarial") approach during cross-examination. The rest of the church's lawyers, however, were rude, hateful, and unethical. 

It sounds very much to me like the guiding principle in determining whether or not an attorney is a White Hat or a Black Hat (in their view) is how sympathetic he appears to be with respect to their position. 

I can understand why they might see things that way - just doesn't make it so.

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Amulek

[changed]

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

Doesn't look like there will be a trial now that SLC prosecutors have reduced the charge from a misdemeanor to an infraction.

Apparently this is their standard practice for anyone who has committed a misdemeanor when the city isn't seeking jail time. It's just faster, cheaper, easier to give them a fine and then move on (link).

 

 

It is a sad statement that charges were placed in the first place.  To allow abuse to continue - to enable it - is to do nothing....

For evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing.

Let's say one of your kids is abused at school, by one of their teachers, and the school does nothing about it - the teacher is still there, still working with kids, and the entire school system is set up to protect and ignore abuse.  What would you do?  Would you

a) remain silent.  Just quietly take your own kids out of the school, and let everyone else there who is ignorant about what is going on stay ignorant.  Allow the abuse to continue.

b) say something, stand up against the system, and do everything in your power to warn others of the dangerous situations their children are in?

Good people choose b).

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, changed said:

It is a sad statement that charges were placed in the first place. 

Nonsense. This woman hijacked General Conference - a televised, worldwide religious meeting - in an effort to get her own personal message out.

You're free to do that, of course, but you're not free to do so without consequence.

If she had pulled a similar stunt in a different setting, say in a courtroom, she would invariably be looking at more than just a slap on the wrist. 

Why? Not because judges are trying to silence women or protect predators, but because (and, this really isn't a difficult concept to comprehend) courtrooms are not the appropriate venue for these kinds of protests / displays.

Neither are religious gatherings.

 

Quote

For evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing.

Nobody said anything about doing nothing. But 'fighting against evil' doesn't serve as justification for any and all actions either. 

 

Quote

Let's say one of your kids is abused at school, by one of their teachers, and the school does nothing about it - the teacher is still there, still working with kids, and the entire school system is set up to protect and ignore abuse.  What would you do?  Would you

a) remain silent.  Just quietly take your own kids out of the school, and let everyone else there who is ignorant about what is going on stay ignorant.  Allow the abuse to continue.

b) say something, stand up against the system, and do everything in your power to warn others of the dangerous situations their children are in?

Good people choose b).

Sure. But if they elected to barge into school and interrupt students while they were in the process of taking their state-mandated testing or engaging in some other important event, I would think those 'good people' were real jerks.

 

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, changed said:

For evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing.

Martin Luther King, jr. said that (well, appropriated from Edmund Burke). However, Martin Luther King, jr. did not use that a license to do anything to fight evil. Doing something doesn't mean doing everything. The obvious example is non-violence -- MLK wasn't saying that good men and women have to go out and get violent against the evil. He knew that the ends didn't justify the means.

Quote

Let's say one of your kids is abused at school, by one of their teachers, and the school does nothing about it - the teacher is still there, still working with kids, and the entire school system is set up to protect and ignore abuse.  What would you do?  Would you

a) remain silent.  Just quietly take your own kids out of the school, and let everyone else there who is ignorant about what is going on stay ignorant.  Allow the abuse to continue.

b) say something, stand up against the system, and do everything in your power to warn others of the dangerous situations their children are in?

Good people choose b).

You have set up a binary, a false dichotomy. Either you do nothing or do everything. That is false and MLK would disagree with you. You don't do everything in your power -- you don't go firebomb the pedophile teacher's house to warn people, for example. The ends do not justify the means. The world is not black and white. I think the temptation to look at it this way with pedophilia is because it is a heinous crime and so our emotions can lead us to the binary. So, you need to add in options c, d, e, f, g, h, i, etc to get at a more accurate assessment of what good people would choose.

I'm pretty sure good people wouldn't choose b, because we have a lot of power to cause hurt in the name of good.

Edited May 24, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[Kenngo1969]

On 5/7/2019 at 10:39 PM, Tacenda said:

I wonder why the church bails and pays out the money without a fight? ...

Because it's cheaper to settle than it is to litigate.  Even if, ultimately, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is dismissed as a defendant in a given case, it still has to pay attorneys to get to that point (i.e., to file and argue a Motion to Dismiss, a Motion for Summary Judgment, etc.).  

[changed]

On 5/23/2019 at 8:41 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Martin Luther King, jr. said that (well, appropriated from Edmund Burke). However, Martin Luther King, jr. did not use that a license to do anything to fight evil. Doing something doesn't mean doing everything. The obvious example is non-violence -- MLK wasn't saying that good men and women have to go out and get violent against the evil. He knew that the ends didn't justify the means.

You have set up a binary, a false dichotomy. Either you do nothing or do everything. That is false and MLK would disagree with you. You don't do everything in your power -- you don't go firebomb the pedophile teacher's house to warn people, for example. The ends do not justify the means. The world is not black and white. I think the temptation to look at it this way with pedophilia is because it is a heinous crime and so our emotions can lead us to the binary. So, you need to add in options c, d, e, f, g, h, i, etc to get at a more accurate assessment of what good people would choose.

I'm pretty sure good people wouldn't choose b, because we have a lot of power to cause hurt in the name of good.

 

Sure sure, you don't go overthrow tables in the temple or anything