Fair Dinkum Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 Evidentially a Pedophile was Called as Bishop. Its been a long time since I believed that "Callings" are made by God through inspiration. Instead, personal experience has instead shown me that the extending of callings is a very human enterprise. That said many within the church still believe that callings are made by God through inspiration. As someone who has been interviewed by a GA to fill the position of SP, I came to realize just how human this process really is. (I am only sharing my opinion and do not expect anyone else to share my viewpoint) Way too often, people such as this California bishop, sneak through the process, to leave me with any other conclusion. God would not inspire leaders to call a pedophile as a Bishop, however well meaning human's would make this mistake and obvisouly do. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 On 6/3/2020 at 12:08 PM, Anakin7 said: I believe "groomed" means verbally persuaded and trained. The training might be described as Pavlovian, because it is designed to progressively bring the target into the web of sin -- incrementally creating familiarity and comfort --- and will differ according to the culture, age, and preferences of the target. It might be a good idea to be a kid who knows how to say "no," even if it seems discourteous to do so. Being raised as a cooperative and obedient youngster isn't necessarily an example of wise parenting. When a kid starts telling his parent "no," that may be an indication that the parents have done a good job. The job of a good parent is to raise a kid who can think independently and who doesn't go long just to get along. Raising naive and sycophantic kids is no boon to society, and leaves them vulnerable to every huckster who comes along. 2 Link to comment
Popular Post Ahab Posted June 4, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Evidentially a Pedophile was Called as Bishop. Its been a long time since I believed that "Callings" are made by God through inspiration. Instead, personal experience has instead shown me that the extending of callings is a very human enterprise. That said many within the church still believe that callings are made by God through inspiration. As someone who has been interviewed by a GA to fill the position of SP, I came to realize just how human this process really is. (I am only sharing my opinion and do not expect anyone else to share my viewpoint) Way too often, people such as this California bishop, sneak through the process, to leave me with any other conclusion. God would not inspire leaders to call a pedophile as a Bishop, however well meaning human's would make this mistake and obvisouly do. The fact that Jesus chose Judas to be one of his apostles negates the idea that those who are called to serve will always make good decisions. Everyone who is called to serve still has agency and can choose to do bad things. What I've noticed about people who are called to serve in any position is that in it they have an opportunity to grow more spiritually by serving in that position, if they will do what they should do. And that they still have a lot to learn. 7 Link to comment
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted June 4, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Evidentially a Pedophile was Called as Bishop. Its been a long time since I believed that "Callings" are made by God through inspiration. Instead, personal experience has instead shown me that the extending of callings is a very human enterprise. That said many within the church still believe that callings are made by God through inspiration. As someone who has been interviewed by a GA to fill the position of SP, I came to realize just how human this process really is. (I am only sharing my opinion and do not expect anyone else to share my viewpoint) Way too often, people such as this California bishop, sneak through the process, to leave me with any other conclusion. God would not inspire leaders to call a pedophile as a Bishop, however well meaning human's would make this mistake and obvisouly do. Correct, Fair Dinkum. Indeed, an honest man or woman should be prepared to turn down a calling, unless receiving an authentic confirmation via the Holy Spirit. How to know the will of the Holy Spirit? Only the individual can know that. No one else. Current Pres Eyring (Counselor in the First Pres) tells his own experience as a bishop. He gave what turned out to be bad advice to a member of his congregation, and later found out just how wrong he had been. And he admitted that to that member later, and told all of us about it during Conference. Why? To put down or allay the idiotic notion that bishops, stake presidents, or GAs are infallible. Of course they are not. Brigham Young stated publicly how annoyed he was that people would just believe anything he said without bothering to go to the Lord and ask. It disturbed him that LDS Church members would live on "borrowed light." That can lead to all sorts of problems, such as the lawsuit discussed on this thread. 5 Link to comment
Stargazer Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 2 hours ago, alter idem said: Of course they are still called 'Bishop' sometimes, but never after being excommunicated, and certainly not known as the 'Father', albeit, excommunicated 'Father of the ward', that would be totally inappropriate and not funny. 'Forgetting " he was not a member anymore? Who forgets about a Bishop being excommunicated? That's a real stretch to even consider, imo. It seems kind of variable as to who keeps getting called Bishop and who doesn't. In my old ward in Olympia, Washington, at one point we had five or six men who had been bishop over the preceding 25 years. It seemed to me that only the most recent former holders were addressed as "Bishop", and then only occasionally after a few months had passed. In my present ward, which is much smaller, we have six, and literally none of them gets called "Bishop" except the current holder of the position. Back in the days when bishops held the calling for decades at a time it might have difficult for members to stop using the title for the previous bishop after his release, but now? 2 Link to comment
pogi Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 36 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Evidentially a Pedophile was Called as Bishop. Its been a long time since I believed that "Callings" are made by God through inspiration. Instead, personal experience has instead shown me that the extending of callings is a very human enterprise. That said many within the church still believe that callings are made by God through inspiration. As someone who has been interviewed by a GA to fill the position of SP, I came to realize just how human this process really is. (I am only sharing my opinion and do not expect anyone else to share my viewpoint) Way too often, people such as this California bishop, sneak through the process, to leave me with any other conclusion. God would not inspire leaders to call a pedophile as a Bishop, however well meaning human's would make this mistake and obvisouly do. 25 minutes ago, Ahab said: The fact that Jesus chose Judas to be one of his apostles negates the idea that those who are called to serve will always make good decisions. Everyone who is called to serve still has agency and can choose to do bad things. What I've noticed about people who are called to serve in any position is that in it they have an opportunity to grow more spiritually by serving in that position, if they will do what they should do. And that they still have a lot to learn. I think both are true to some extent. Not all callings are inspired, and not all 'bad-actors' are uninspired callings. 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 11 minutes ago, Stargazer said: It seems kind of variable as to who keeps getting called Bishop and who doesn't. In my old ward in Olympia, Washington, at one point we had five or six men who had been bishop over the preceding 25 years. It seemed to me that only the most recent former holders were addressed as "Bishop", and then only occasionally after a few months had passed. In my present ward, which is much smaller, we have six, and literally none of them gets called "Bishop" except the current holder of the position. Back in the days when bishops held the calling for decades at a time it might have difficult for members to stop using the title for the previous bishop after his release, but now? In my observation, it has always been an optional thing, not a requirement or even an expectation, but not inappropriate (so long as the man remains worthy). I think it’s fine as a recognition of the man’s past service and of the special bond that developed between him and his ward members. 1 Link to comment
Stargazer Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 35 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Evidentially a Pedophile was Called as Bishop. Its been a long time since I believed that "Callings" are made by God through inspiration. Instead, personal experience has instead shown me that the extending of callings is a very human enterprise. That said many within the church still believe that callings are made by God through inspiration. As someone who has been interviewed by a GA to fill the position of SP, I came to realize just how human this process really is. (I am only sharing my opinion and do not expect anyone else to share my viewpoint) Way too often, people such as this California bishop, sneak through the process, to leave me with any other conclusion. God would not inspire leaders to call a pedophile as a Bishop, however well meaning human's would make this mistake and obvisouly do. I've been interviewed by a GA to fill the position of Stake President as well. In no way did it resemble being interviewed for any job I've ever been interviewed for. The GA in question, by the way, was Elder Robert D. Hales, but while he was a GA Seventy, not Q12. It was a brief conversation and I don't remember a darned thing about the conversation other than its brevity and the lack of "qualification" questions. He was not looking like "a man looketh", is all I can say. The only question I can recall him asking was if I had any recommendations regarding who might be a good new SP. I did, in fact, have someone in mind, and that was the branch president of a neighboring branch. He didn't get called, incidentally -- though I remember who it was, because he eventually served as a GA himself: Bruce D. Porter. Br. Porter was a spiritual giant even when we served as full-time missionaries in the same mission waaaaay back in 1972. Well, that's a tangent. Sometimes I wonder why people expect people whom the Lord calls to a position to be somehow infallible. I know someone has brought up Judas, but in addition to him we have Kings Saul and David in the Bible. Both men were apparently ideal candidates of great ability and faithfulness. But of course, as always DC 121:39-40 comes into play: 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. 40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen. There's another thing here, too. And that is that God knows the end from the beginning. He is not being surprised here, or at any time. As He exists outside of Time and thus outside of our Universe, looking in, as it were, he already knows how it all ends up. Because for Him it has already run its course. The plain fact of it all is this: some of us fail miserably. He put us here where we could demonstrate that we were not cut out to be joint heirs with Christ, and he knows full well who fails and who succeeds in the end. But until we have our chance, we don't know, and we have to be given that chance. This is all very quantum, by the way, just like Schrödinger's Cat. The state vector will collapse upon observation and we will then know for ourselves -- but God knows now whether the Cat gets out of that box alive or dead, and knew it from the beginning. You are observing through the glass very very darkly, and because you're seeing with eyes as fully directed upon the things of the earth as it's possible to be, instead of the things of eternity, it's no surprise that you see nothing. 3 Link to comment
Stargazer Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 21 minutes ago, pogi said: I think both are true to some extent. Not all callings are inspired, and not all 'bad-actors' are uninspired callings. That's true enough. But regardless of whether the calling was inspired, God puts men and women where they can fail or succeed. And then they do one or the other. I think that for the callings that are not inspired, or are in fact anti-inspired, the test was not so much in the callee, but in the caller. In the case of a stake president who calls a crapper of a bishop, he obviously failed to get inspired and has failed in that instance. Now I happen to believe that the Lord inspires the call of wolves into the flock from time to time. The point of the matter is that most of them aren't wolves at the time of their calls, and are being given their chance to fail spectacularly. Because we are all here to be tested, and in order for the test to be valid we have to be capable of completely screwing it up, and then be given the opportunity to do so. And not only that, we are also being tested as to how we react to such failures! Do we lose faith and leave the church because a bishop is a child-abuser? We let the sin of another move us to disbelieve -- instead of relying upon the Holy Ghost -- and we've proven that our faith is insufficient. Nevertheless, how many people having been called not through inspiration but through happenstance or false inspiration and have nevertheless performed well what they were called to do? We'll never know, will we? Because if they succeed regardless, we have no way to know that they weren't supposed to be called to that position, do we? LOL. When all men and women have become perfect, the organization of the Church will no longer be necessary. That won't happen anytime soon, and those who expect that it is even possible for God to never allow a bad actor to be called to a position of authority, well, they are expecting a perfect world. God actually can't use a perfect world. It must, by definition, be imperfect. We just have to deal with it as best we can. We are not here to have a fun time. We are here to be destructively tested in order to learn who we really are, and whether and how God can use us in his important work. If we're suitable, great. If not, too bad. But we must demonstrate it. 1 Link to comment
Stargazer Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In my observation, it has always been an optional thing, not a requirement or even an expectation, but not inappropriate (so long as the man remains worthy). I think it’s fine as a recognition of the man’s past service and of the special bond that developed between him and his ward members. I didn't say it was inappropriate, just in case you might have thought that's what I meant. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 15 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I didn't say it was inappropriate, just in case you might have thought that's what I meant. Didn’t say you did. But you seemed to be questioning why the custom goes on now as opposed to in the past. I’m saying it is as justifiable today as in yesteryear. Link to comment
Ahab Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: In my observation, it has always been an optional thing, not a requirement or even an expectation, but not inappropriate (so long as the man remains worthy). I think it’s fine as a recognition of the man’s past service and of the special bond that developed between him and his ward members. Technically a man who is ordained as a bishop remains a bishop unless his priesthood is loosed, or revoked. And any man who is ordained as an elder can be referred to as an elder, or Elder whatever, unless his priesthood is revoked. I know for some people that a reference to a man's priesthood office is considered a term of endearment, but I refer to a man as a bishop only when he is acting in that office, and then when he is released I usually refer to him as either brother whatever, if he is older than I am, or by his first given name, which is colloquially referred to as his Christian name, if he is younger than or about the same age as I am. And I do the same with presidents, or whatever. Edited June 4, 2020 by Ahab 1 Link to comment
rodheadlee Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: Evidentially a Pedophile was Called as Bishop. Its been a long time since I believed that "Callings" are made by God through inspiration. Instead, personal experience has instead shown me that the extending of callings is a very human enterprise. That said many within the church still believe that callings are made by God through inspiration. As someone who has been interviewed by a GA to fill the position of SP, I came to realize just how human this process really is. (I am only sharing my opinion and do not expect anyone else to share my viewpoint) Way too often, people such as this California bishop, sneak through the process, to leave me with any other conclusion. God would not inspire leaders to call a pedophile as a Bishop, however well meaning human's would make this mistake and obvisouly do. Yet Christ called Judas as an Apostle. So I think you are wrong. Link to comment
Calm Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, smac97 said: However, I've never heard "father of the ward" used in any context for any bishop, ever. I think I used to hear it in abstract as in teaching the role of the bishop, never in introducing an actual person. I would not be surprised if it was a holdover from the days bishops served much longer, so maybe dying out? Edited June 5, 2020 by Calm Link to comment
Stargazer Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Didn’t say you did. But you seemed to be questioning why the custom goes on now as opposed to in the past. I’m saying it is as justifiable today as in yesteryear. Not that it matters, but I wasn't questioning the custom, just that it seems to be variable in application. The two wards I am most familiar with seemed to apply it differently. Of course, the one ward is US and the other UK. Not sure if that is the answer. And I don''t have enough of a baseline to really be sure. Does anyone else? You, Scott, through your former occupation may have a better baseline for it. Link to comment
smac97 Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 22 minutes ago, Calm said: I think I used to hear it in abstract as in teaching the role of the bishop, never in introducing an actual person. I would not be surprised if it was a holdover from the days bishops served much longer, so maybe dying out? Yes, I think that's likely. I asked my wife if she's ever heard it, and she said she recalls it being in the lyrics of a primary song. Sure enough, she was right. I've never heard that song. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: Not that it matters, but I wasn't questioning the custom, just that it seems to be variable in application. The two wards I am most familiar with seemed to apply it differently. Of course, the one ward is US and the other UK. Not sure if that is the answer. And I don''t have enough of a baseline to really be sure. Does anyone else? You, Scott, through your former occupation may have a better baseline for it. Not really. It’s one of those omnipresent elements of our culture, and I never really gave it much thought. Maybe it’s dying out, but if so, I’ve yet to notice. Link to comment
mnn727 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 On 6/4/2020 at 4:05 PM, Fair Dinkum said: Its been a long time since I believed that "Callings" are made by God through inspiration I've been part of Ward leadership where I know the leadership had divine inspiration and in other Wards where I know they did not. You can't just make a blanket statement. 3 Link to comment
Stargazer Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 1 hour ago, mnn727 said: I've been part of Ward leadership where I know the leadership had divine inspiration and in other Wards where I know they did not. You can't just make a blanket statement. I was in a position of being called to a ward leadership position where I knew without any shadow of doubt that the Lord directed the calling. I won't go into why I knew this to be so. But it was. And was I a wonderful ward leader? Did I provide marvelous and inspirational leadership and never make any errors? The answer to the question was NO. Now, I didn't do badly. And I got the impression that the members felt I had done a creditable job, but was I some super-leader? Not at all. But I was what the Lord had at that time and place, and so he used me. There is no perfect man or woman. There is no perfect leader. We are all flawed in one way or another, or more likely in many ways. And sometimes we fail. And sometimes our inspiration fails. It is what it is. If it doesn't work out, pick up the pieces, move on, and do the best you can to do it better next time. And realize that others are in a similar boat. 2 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 Apparently this guy's son was also convicted of sexual abuse of minors. My sister lives in Gilroy where the son lived. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/17/former-music-teacher-agrees-to-56-year-prison-sentence-in-student-sex-assaults/ Here's an article with his dad: 🤮 https://childmolestationattorneys.com/sexual-abuse-lawsuit-san-jose-mormon-church/amp/?fbclid=IwAR0AvIDpzGVQbpGDL9XNbZstWYOWy41EiR4JORDCAr0BAlGgWv9m7wL0dic Link to comment
Maureen Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: Apparently this guy's son was also convicted of sexual abuse of minors. My sister lives in Gilroy where the son lived. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/17/former-music-teacher-agrees-to-56-year-prison-sentence-in-student-sex-assaults/ Here's an article with his dad: 🤮 https://childmolestationattorneys.com/sexual-abuse-lawsuit-san-jose-mormon-church/amp/?fbclid=IwAR0AvIDpzGVQbpGDL9XNbZstWYOWy41EiR4JORDCAr0BAlGgWv9m7wL0dic I read about Samuel Neipp too and was wondering if they were related. M. Link to comment
lets get real Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 since he was no longer sitting up front where the bishop and counselors sit, to me that was obvious, and some one had to take his place, the parents had to see that, and he was voted in , Im sure they raised there arm to vote new bishop in, who are they tying to fool, they didn't know he wasn't a Bishop any more is hog wash, and they dont have to tell every one in the ward he was exed, but that kind of stuff gets around. Just saying Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted June 9, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted June 9, 2020 (edited) On 6/4/2020 at 3:05 PM, Fair Dinkum said: Evidentially a Pedophile was Called as Bishop. Its been a long time since I believed that "Callings" are made by God through inspiration. Instead, personal experience has instead shown me that the extending of callings is a very human enterprise. That said many within the church still believe that callings are made by God through inspiration. As someone who has been interviewed by a GA to fill the position of SP, I came to realize just how human this process really is. (I am only sharing my opinion and do not expect anyone else to share my viewpoint) Way too often, people such as this California bishop, sneak through the process, to leave me with any other conclusion. God would not inspire leaders to call a pedophile as a Bishop, however well meaning human's would make this mistake and obvisouly do. I wonder if you have succumbed to a form of fundamentalist, black-or-white, all-or-nothing thinking. You seem to reject inspiration altogether as part of the process of "the extending of callings" in favor of it being solely "a very human enterprise." If so, I must respectfully disagree with you. That has not been my experience at all. I think many callings are ratified by the Spirit. That is, a calling may be extended through a process that is largely, and perhaps sometimes entirely, the product of the discretion of the person(s) extending the calling. I am reminded here of D&C 80, in which the Lord called Stephen Burnett to be a missionary. However, the instruction in verse 3 is, in my view, pretty interesting: Quote Wherefore, go ye and preach my gospel, whether to the north or to the south, to the east or to the west, it mattereth not, for ye cannot go amiss. Is it possible, then, for a bishopric, or a stake presidency, to have multiple options available to them when extending a calling, any of which will be ratified by the Spirit because they are doing their best to use their cumulative knowledge and experience, such that they "cannot go amiss?" Such that the Spirit will ratify whatever decision they make? In other situations, the Spirit may take a more hands-on approach, specifically directing the decisionmakers' thoughts toward a specific person being called to a specific calling at a specific time. Do you utterly discount this as a possibility? Or can it happen sometimes? In still other situations, the decisionmakers may be not particularly atuned to the Spirit, may be "going through the motions" when thinking about a particular calling. A bishopric can be called upon to sort out new callings several times a month. Perhaps there are times when a bishopric does not consistently seek out and obtain guidance from the Spirit, such that a calling may be extended based on the bishopric's educated guess. Sometimes such a calling will work out just fine. But sometimes not. Sometimes a person may not be suited for a calling at a particular time, and should therefore notify the bishop. If such an individual fails to do so, and accepts the calling despite the issue at hand, then problems can arise. And in yet other situations, we have the "Judas" problem. Was Judas unworthy from the outset to be an apostle? Or did he become so over time? What about Jonah, who upon being called to go to Nineveh, “fled from the presence of the Lord” (Jonah 1:10)? What about Moses, who rather than speaking to the rock (as the Lord had commanded), struck it twice (Numbers 20:10-12)? What about Joseph Smith, who was chastised by the Angel Moroni because he "had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord?" How do we reconcile A) the Lord using inspiration to B) call flawed men and women to do His work? For myself, I cannot take the all-or-nothing approach you do. That is, that callings in the Church have nothing to do with inspiration, and are instead a purely "human enterprise." For me, it is both. Mankind has the ability to mess up pretty much anything he puts his hand to. However, I have had many, many experiences where the Spirit has been specifically and clearly and potently involved in the decision-making process vis-à-vis extending callings (D&C 9:8, in other words). I have also had many experiences where the "stupor of thought" in D&C 9:9 was manifest. I have also had many experiences in which we used our best efforts to ascertain how to extend a calling and to whom, and later felt that the calling was good and proper, and "ratified," even though no particular spiritual prompting precipitated it (perhaps becase were were in a "cannot go amiss" situation). I also had some experiences where we extended a calling that did not work out. In hindsight, some of these were likely due to us rushing the process, or "going through the motions" and not being sufficiently atuned to the Spirit. I'll own that. I also had some experiences where a calling was extended to someone who, in retrospect, was not situated to receive it. When I extended a calling, I preceded it with a preliminary question or two intended to suss out whether there was an impediment to the person accepting the calling. Sometimes the individual took the opportunity to explain things that were amiss in his/her life (difficulties at home or at work, emotional/physical health, worthiness issues, whatever). Sometimes a person with "things amiss" did not take the opportunity to explain things, which could later create difficulties. Sometimes the individual would affirmatively misrepresent things to the bishopric member. In these varying circumstances, there were times when the bishop "caught" the problem with extending the calling to the individual. There were also times where the bishop may have surmised that there were "things amiss," but nevertheless extended the calling anyway. Was the bishop uniformly right to do so? Uniformly wrong? Somewhere in between? There are mechanisms in place in the Church for "vetting" callings. Callings are considered by more than one person (a bishopric, a stake presidency, etc.). Callings should be "studied out" per D&C 9. They should interview the individual prior to extending a calling (in our stake, the policy is for a bishop to contact the individual's prior bishop whenever the individual to receive a calling has been in the ward less than a year). The decisionmakers need to have their own lives more or less in order. They need to be patient and let inspiration come, but they also need to ensure that callings are timely filled. They need to seek out guidance from the Spirit through prayer and real effort. And the individual needs to be honest when accepting a calling. I think these mechanisms can work quite well. However, the human element - and the possibility for error or failing arising therefrom - is there. So a bishop can, like Moses or Jonah or Joseph Smith, make mistakes in fulfilling the responsibilities vested in him. Hence we have councils. And some safeguards (two-deep teachers in Primary, for example). And, of course, we have the means of overcoming these mistakes through repentance and the Atonement. Taken as a whole, I believe the Church is richly blessed with inspiration from God. From the highest quorums down to bishoprics, ward organizations, families, and individuals. We have the Spirit, or the right to it. We need to avail ourselves to it more often, because it's there for the asking. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 9, 2020 by smac97 6 Link to comment
goopla Posted June 27, 2020 Share Posted June 27, 2020 Neipp is my family member and therefore I can confirm that he is 100% guilty. Whether or not the Church is responsible is the question though. The Church had regulations in place at the time of the abuse in the name of preventing these sorts of situations. Since then, however, additional rules have been instituted. So maybe the Church should have placed those rules earlier on. On the other hand, they’re in place now, so the accountability that the law suit is trying to hold the Church to has already been dealt with. Plus, it’s true that he was excommunicated before the abuse began. The third victim, not listed here because she wasn’t involved in the lawsuit, was abused well before he was ever called as bishop, as well as during and after, but because she’s another family member, it could hardly be construed as the Church’s fault. The article states that he was “chosen by God” to be in a leadership position. It’s also true, however, that humans are imperfect and make mistakes, even when extending callings. It’s true that people should be able to trust church leadership, but you (clearly) can never be too careful, because you never know. That’s something I’ve kept in mind as a result of this very situation. I agree that the likelihood of members not knowing about the excommunication is slim. I had always known about it but it’s possible that that’s just because it was also, of course, a family affair. A side note: I find it interesting that the press release didn’t draw the connection between Joseph and his son, Samuel, who pleaded guilty last year to multiple charges of statutory rape which, again, is too big a coincidence for innocence to be plausible for Joseph. Link to comment
Calm Posted June 27, 2020 Share Posted June 27, 2020 (edited) Thanks for providing the additional context. I am sorry for this tragedy in your family. My husband’s close knit extended family had a somewhat similar experience, though it appears abuse was limited to his family. It was a personal horror for them (I had met the uncle and his family at weddings a few times, but didn’t know them well enough for it to feel personal). The fallout for the children involved is still brings me to tears though. I hope all of you are able to receive the support and healing you need. Edited June 27, 2020 by Calm Link to comment
Recommended Posts