SBC sex abuse report

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

And it's not like we have to figure that all out either before the idea is plausible. 

I agree.

I believe I have a fairly good grasp on the reasons behind why some sort of change might be desired - I'm just too caught up on trying to figure out (or even just conceptualize, really) the how. 

 

[The Nehor]

Honestly if you were to do this you would give it to Seventies whose job it is to travel or consult on specific cases. Instead of a hotline make it a place to report a situation. Tie it to website and only allow members to submit reports of potential problems. Give them full discretion to block individuals from submitting reports if they are spamming things and discretion on which situations to pour more resources into.

If you hem them on having to write up reports on every submission you will be dealing with complaints that “Bishop X clearly favors Y because X gave the calling I should have gotten to Y. The Holy Ghost told me I should get the calling. Please correct this.”

[MustardSeed]

On 5/25/2022 at 12:29 PM, smac97 said:

Again, if a local leader is misbehaving, those in authority over him will want to know.  

In theory yes.  If you want to talk real life, I have experiences that say otherwise. 

[Rain]

 

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I would not make any of it public. I regret sharing myNDE with the board.

That's just where I think bsjkki and others are.  They have some learning and understanding to share that can help others, but it isn't always wise for them to share.

By the way I appreciate that you did share your NDE.  I get why you regret it and I don't blame you, but I appreciate the experience you have had that helps the rest of us.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Lets him speak, pray and teach knowing what he’s done. It’s an open secret in leadership this guy is a creep but they don’t warn the young move ins. It’s between adults he said after a call to Salt Lake.

This is truly bizarre to me.

A few years ago, we had a young couple in our stake who accused a recent convert of making inappropriate sexual advances against the wife. The bishop immediately encouraged the couple to contact the police, which they did. He then called the accused in, told him what he had been accused of, released him from his calling, and said that he would not be allowed to participate fully in the ward until the matter had been resolved. The man vehemently denied the charges but saw the wisdom in these restrictions. The bishop then told the ward council and asked them to keep a vigilant eye on this man whenever he was at any kind of church meeting or activity. A similar warning was issued to the high council. (I was serving with the stake presidency at the time.)

The police conducted a thorough investigation over the course of months (including examining mobile phone records and the content of texts, emails, online messaging apps, etc.) and concluded that there was zero evidence to back up the woman's claims. As a result, the accused was completely exonerated. Ward and stake leaders then agreed for him to resume full church activity, including once again holding a calling.

The couple who had accused him were livid. They demanded that Church leaders see through the outcome of the police investigation by means of 'revelation' and excommunicate this man regardless. This demand was met with kindness and understanding but was not fulfilled. In response, the couple insisted on being released from their callings (high council for him and something in the primary for her) and stopped attending church. A short while later, they moved away and officially disassociated from the Church.

The accused, meanwhile, remains active and serves faithfully in his ward. I have never seen any resentment on his part.

I find the whole situation dreadfully confusing. And I've watched the difficulties faced by Church leaders when they find themselves in the middle of such confusion.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Kenngo1969]

While on my mission, I was accused of wrongdoing as a recently "released" district leader (although, formally, that is not done with mission leadership: whomever gives one the news just says, "Yeah, as of this transfer, you're no longer a district leader.")  I had just been transferred to an area and my companion had scheduled our zone leader to do some baptismal interviews for a family (!!!) that had finished the missionary discussions.  We go to the house, the appointed hour arrives, and no zone leader.  More time passes, and no zone leader.  Still more time passes, and no zone leader.

Finally, I take my companion aside and suggest that, if the mission president would approve, I could do the interviews, since I had just arrived and hadn't had anything to do with teaching the family.  Before that night, I hadn't even met them, in fact.  He agreed.  We got the president's approval.  My companion asked me if I felt comfortable asking the questions from memory.  I said I didn't because I had been a district leader for only a short time before being released and had only done a handful of interviews.  We made a beeline back to our apartment and I ran in (as fast as I can "run" anywhere ), found the page in the Missionary Guide with the interview questions on it, ripped it out, and we made a beeline back to our prospective members' home.  The "ripped page" would end up being the only evidence I had of what actually happened.

We went back to the prospective members' home and I interviewed them, asking them the questions absolutely verbatim as they appeared on that ripped page.  Two of the three members of the family I interviewed indicated having had involvement with an abortion.  In accordance with policy, I didn't ask for details and simply said that another interview would be necessary.  The next thing I know, a few days later, I'm getting a call from the zone leaders telling me I had been accused of asking inappropriate questions ... allegedly about their intimate lives and whether they "enjoyed it" ...   

This whole episode occurs just as one mission president is being released and as another one has been called.  We go to the mission-wide meeting.  I meet the new president.  The first thing he says to me is, "Elder Gourdin, my assistants tell me we need to talk.  Is that true?"  No, President.  I don't know how it happened, but the whole thing is simply a giant misunderstanding.  "Well," I said, if your assistants tell you we need to talk, I guess we need to talk."  So, I told him the whole story of what actually happened, including offering the ripped page as evidence.  Apparently, the mission president called a [very shaken] stake president and asked him to dig a little deeper behind the lies he had [apparently] been told.*

Eventually, I was exonerated.  Eventually.  Yes, it was a very strange episode, and no, it's not the norm, but sometimes members [and, in this case, prospective members] lie about what, allegedly, leaders do.  It does happen.

_____________________

*Though he was my mission president only from July 1 until I was released on Thanksgiving Day of that year, I thank God that he didn't allow this sordid little episode to color the whole of our relationship!   

Edited May 28, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

While on my mission, I was accused of wrongdoing as a recently "released" district leader (although, formally, that is not done with mission leadership: whomever gives one the news just says, "Yeah, as of this transfer, you're no longer a district leader.")  I had just been transferred to an area and my companion had scheduled our zone leader to do some baptismal interviews for a family (!!!) that had finished the missionary discussions.  We go to the house, the appointed hour arrives, and no zone leader.  More time passes, and no zone leader.  Still more time passes, and no zone leader.

Finally, I take my companion aside and suggest that, if the mission president would approve, I could do the interviews, since I had just arrived and hadn't had anything to do with teaching the family.  Before that night, I hadn't even met them, in fact.  He agreed.  We got the president's approval.  My companion asked me if I felt comfortable asking the questions from memory.  I said I didn't because I had been a district leader for only a short time before being released and had only done a handful of interviews.  We made a beeline back to our apartment and I ran in (as fast as I can "run" anywhere ), found the page in the Missionary Guide with the interview questions on it, ripped it out, and we made a beeline back to our prospective members' homes.  The "ripped page" would end up being the only evidence I had of what actually happened.

We went back to the prospective members' homes and I interviewed them, asking them the questions absolutely verbatim as they appeared on that ripped page.  Two of the three members of the family I interviewed indicated having had involvement with an abortion.  In accordance with policy, I didn't ask for details and simply said that another interview would be necessary.  The next thing I know, a few days later, I'm getting a call from the zone leaders telling me I had been accused of asking inappropriate questions ... allegedly about their intimate lives and whether they "enjoyed it" ...   

This whole episode occurs just as one mission president is being released and as another one has been called.  We go to the mission-wide meeting.  I meet the new president.  The first thing he says to me is, "Elder Gourdin, my assistants tell me we need to talk.  Is that true?"  No, President.  I don't know how it happened, but the whole thing is simply a giant misunderstanding.  "Well," I said, if your assistants tell you we need to talk, I guess we need to talk."  So, I told him the whole story of what actually happened, including offering the ripped page as evidence.  Apparently, the mission president called a [very shaken] stake president and asked him to dig a little deeper behind the lies he had [apparently] been told.*

Eventually, I was exonerated.  Eventually.  Yes, it was a very strange episode, and no, it's not the norm, but sometimes members [and, in this case, prospective members] lie about what, allegedly, leaders do.  It does happen.

I'm afraid this is going to come out wrong. That when you get done reading that it is going to sound like I'm not sincere in what I'm about to say, but I truly am.  I can imagine that would have been very tough on you with leaders and others looking on you with doubt and wondering how things were going to end up.  It must have been frustrating and maybe even scary. 

This next part is not about you or what I said above.  It is about my curiosity. Is there more to this that tells you they lied rather than they understood it the wrong way?  So often we take our own experiences into things and see much more in a conversation than there actually is especially over serious topics as personal as abortion.  You can see things like this in nearly every conversation here on this board. So I'm wondering if they actually lied or if they just heard their own experiences that weren't in your words to them. 

Either way it would be tough on you as you went through it, but it might have affected how others saw you back then when all was said and done and I'm sure that makes a difference in how it affected you. Hard stuff.

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

_____________________

*Though he was my mission president only from July 1 until I was released on Thanksgiving Day of that year, I thank God that he didn't allow this sordid little episode to color the whole of our relationship!   

Me too!

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

... This next part is not about you or what I said above.  It is about my curiosity. Is there more to this that tells you they lied rather than they understood it the wrong way?  ...

While I am aware, fully, that we don't see things as they are, but, rather, we see them as we are, what I know is what the zone leader who informed me of the accusation told me.  And what he told me is that the report he got is that I asked about the members' intimate (substitute the more explicit three-letter word there) life and whether they were "enjoying it."  I don't know who said what to whom, or how many times the "telephone game" was played (bad analogy or bad descriptor, but I think it fits in terms of, perhaps, things being passed along ... however many times) before, finally, whatever was said ended up becoming the monstrous lie it became (whoever told it, first, last or however many times).

So, no, I'm not necessarily accusing anyone of anything (because, first of all, I have no idea whom to accuse, even if I were inclined to do so), but, yes, eventually, however it happened, the relatively simple, uncomplicated, unvarnished truth did become a monstrous lie: Perhaps not a malicious one, and perhaps one that involves only the careless use of imprecise language, but a monstrous (as in gargantuan, with potentially severe deleterious consequences) lie, nonetheless.  And I stand by that characterization. 

If, in the next life, I were to meet the person or persons involved and were asked to give an accounting of myself (or of them), I would remember Matthew 7:1-2, would be less inclined to judge anyone else harshly for all of the times a myriad of people could judge me harshly, and would be inclined, therefore, to "let bygones be bygones" (in fact, I am inclined to "let bygones be bygones" even now, and that would be true even if I knew that someone (and even if I knew specifically who) went directly to [for example] a stake president and told even a bald-faced lie).  My response would be simply, "The Lord judge between me and thee."

Edited May 28, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

Can't start topics, sorry to use this if not applicable. Here's something that has been brought up. The church was mentioned. And they say it has to do with some people well known but won't say names yet. Does anyone know what it's all about?

 

[webbles]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Can't start topics, sorry to use this if not applicable. Here's something that has been brought up. The church was mentioned. And they say it has to do with some people well known but won't say names yet. Does anyone know what it's all about?

Here's the written article in case you want to read it - https://www.fox13now.com/news/crime/investigation-confirms-ritualistic-child-sexual-abuse-sex-trafficking-allegations-in-utah

They are looking at Utah, Juab, and Sanpete counties.  The two victims in the article were referred to a therapist by the church and it sounds like the therapist abused them.  The therapist apparently had previously abused family members.  The dates of the abuse is from 1990 to 2010.

[The Nehor]

On 6/5/2022 at 11:25 PM, Tacenda said:

Can't start topics, sorry to use this if not applicable. Here's something that has been brought up. The church was mentioned. And they say it has to do with some people well known but won't say names yet. Does anyone know what it's all about?

 

It is a political strategy. The supposed abuse happened over a decade ago and the investigation was closed. The sheriff’s office went after a political candidate with QAnon nutty theories and interviewed the candidate as a supposed suspect.

This is recycling the satanic panic from a few decades ago and giving it legitimacy it doesn’t deserve in the interest of swinging an election using law enforcement to intimidate and smear a political opponent.

It is a waste of taxpayer money and part of a generalized threat to democracy overall. Everyone involved should be fired and banned from law enforcement for life. Defund the police.

[webbles]

On 6/5/2022 at 10:25 PM, Tacenda said:

Can't start topics, sorry to use this if not applicable. Here's something that has been brought up. The church was mentioned. And they say it has to do with some people well known but won't say names yet. Does anyone know what it's all about?

I found some more recent details about it - https://www.ksl.com/article/50421520/courtroom-audio-sheds-light-on-case-at-the-heart-of-utah-county-controversy and https://www.ksl.com/article/50415759/utah-county-attorney-sheriff-trade-angry-barbs-over-sex-abuse-investigation and https://www.ksl.com/article/50414933/utah-county-seeks-info-in-ritualistic-child-sexual-abuse-investigation

One of the "high profile Utahns" that is in the allegations is the current Utah County attorney.  One of the known assailants (per a DNA test) is apparently an infamous man who is hiding in Scotland and has multiple rape warrants in the US - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alahverdian.  He says he is innocent and instead says that the Utah County attorney and his wife are the main "cult leaders".  He posted on his website the 151 page allegations that describe the Utah County attorney and wife as running a ring that includes sex abuse and cannabilism.

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, webbles said:

I found some more recent details about it - https://www.ksl.com/article/50421520/courtroom-audio-sheds-light-on-case-at-the-heart-of-utah-county-controversy and https://www.ksl.com/article/50415759/utah-county-attorney-sheriff-trade-angry-barbs-over-sex-abuse-investigation and https://www.ksl.com/article/50414933/utah-county-seeks-info-in-ritualistic-child-sexual-abuse-investigation

One of the "high profile Utahns" that is in the allegations is the current Utah County attorney.  One of the known assailants (per a DNA test) is apparently an infamous man who is hiding in Scotland and has multiple rape warrants in the US - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alahverdian.  He says he is innocent and instead says that the Utah County attorney and his wife are the main "cult leaders".  He posted on his website the 151 page allegations that describe the Utah County attorney and wife as running a ring that includes sex abuse and cannabilism.

He is a serial liar and narcissist who faked his own death to escape a fraud investigation. Now he is accusing a prosecutor of satanic ritual abuse.

I will give these accusation all the consideration they deserve (none).

[Tacenda]

https://www.fox13now.com/news/crime/former-lds-church-teacher-pleads-guilty-to-sex-abuse-charge?fbclid=IwAR2JyqGliJGz6g7xuI4EnjW6DxxgyVELqpSGNozVvxXh6k-xbgDJWhskMgg  

This guy got off way too easy. I'm wondering if this guy invited his primary class that he taught for these sleepovers and if so, them are some dumb parents.

[webbles]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.fox13now.com/news/crime/former-lds-church-teacher-pleads-guilty-to-sex-abuse-charge?fbclid=IwAR2JyqGliJGz6g7xuI4EnjW6DxxgyVELqpSGNozVvxXh6k-xbgDJWhskMgg  

This guy got off way too easy. I'm wondering if this guy invited his primary class that he taught for these sleepovers and if so, them are some dumb parents.

I wouldn't blame the parents.  People like to trust people they know.  He would be a friend or acquaintance and it sounds like he's done multiple sleep overs.  The parents probably didn't think anything bad would happen because they knew him.  Bad people take advantage of that trust.

Here's the law that he was convicted under: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S404.1.html.  The punishments in Utah for a 2nd degree felony can be found at https://www.utcourts.gov/howto/criminallaw/penalties.asp (1-15 years).

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, webbles said:

I wouldn't blame the parents.  People like to trust people they know.  He would be a friend or acquaintance and it sounds like he's done multiple sleep overs.  The parents probably didn't think anything bad would happen because they knew him.  Bad people take advantage of that trust.

Here's the law that he was convicted under: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S404.1.html.  The punishments in Utah for a 2nd degree felony can be found at https://www.utcourts.gov/howto/criminallaw/penalties.asp (1-15 years).

Yeah, that was harsh. But I was dumb when I let my 3 yr. old play at my neighbor's house years ago and it happened to her. She was way too young to be playing at someone's house with just the father there along with his children. But back in the eighties I wonder if we were all naive because it wasn't as prevalent as it is now, or talked about.   

Thanks for the info!

Edited June 13, 2022 by Tacenda

[webbles]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yeah, that was harsh. But I was dumb when I let my 3 yr. old play at my neighbor's house years ago and it happened to her. She was way too young to be playing at someone's house with just the father there along with his children. But back in the eighties I wonder if we were all naive because it wasn't as prevalent as it is now, or talked about.   

Thanks for the info!

Lots of people let their young children play at neighbor's houses.  The abuse happens rarely, back then and now.  We here about it more because we have 24 hour news and online news that can span the entire globe.  You were just really, really unlucky that it happened to your child.  It wasn't your fault, nor were you dumb about it.  Your neighbor misused your trust and it is entirely his fault.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.fox13now.com/news/crime/former-lds-church-teacher-pleads-guilty-to-sex-abuse-charge?fbclid=IwAR2JyqGliJGz6g7xuI4EnjW6DxxgyVELqpSGNozVvxXh6k-xbgDJWhskMgg  

This guy got off way too easy. I'm wondering if this guy invited his primary class that he taught for these sleepovers and if so, them are some dumb parents.

It sounds like he did and yes the parents were incredibly naive (I would say dumb but I also wouldn't want to pour salt into any wounds) to allow their kids to go.  We want to trust people who we know but in this day and age--with child porn the huge thing that it is--we have to learn to trust but with caveats. 

Trust but verify.  Trust while limiting opportunities for a trusted adult to cause harm.  Trust but with safety systems in place. Etc.

And this guy was brazen to extend such an invite.  Most adults would never put themselves into a situation where accusations and suspicion of wrongdoing could easily occur (let alone actually do anything accusation-worthy), but this guy jumped into that scenario with both feet. 

He apparently thought the risk was worth the payout.  

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It sounds like he did and yes the parents were incredibly naive (I would say dumb but I also wouldn't want to pour salt into any wounds) to allow their kids to go.  We want to trust people who we know but in this day and age--with child porn the huge thing that it is--we have to learn to trust but with caveats. 

Trust but verify.  Trust while limiting opportunities for a trusted adult to cause harm.  Trust but with safety systems in place. Etc.

And this guy was brazen to extend such an invite.  Most adults would never put themselves into a situation where accusations and suspicion of wrongdoing could easily occur (let alone actually do anything accusation-worthy), but this guy jumped into that scenario with both feet. 

He apparently thought the risk was worth the payout.  

This must have been known about by the Bishop and PP. The fact this was ‘allowed’ to happen at all shows we have a long way to go in educating leaders about protecting their flock. He was probably a super nice guy and everybody loved him. 🤦‍♀️

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This must have been known about by the Bishop and PP. The fact this was ‘allowed’ to happen at all shows we have a long way to go in educating leaders about protecting their flock. He was probably a super nice guy and everybody loved him. 🤦‍♀️

If the parents wanted to allow their kids to go, I'm not sure what the Bishop could do?  Technically the bishop has no no jurisdiction on allowing or not allowing this to happen, as long as it wasn't presented as a church sponsored thing.

Maybe the bishop could have released him from his calling if he asked the teacher not to do the sleepovers and he did anyway?  But if parents loved him that much, that could backfire.  It could be a tough spot to be in, depending on if the bishop knew, how he reacted, and how much the parents trusted the guy.

And yes, I bet he came across as an incredibly nice guy.

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the parents wanted to allow their kids to go, I'm not sure what the Bishop could do?  Technically the bishop has no no jurisdiction on allowing or not allowing this to happen, as long as it wasn't presented as a church sponsored thing.

Maybe the bishop could have released him from his calling if he asked the teacher not to do the sleepovers and he did anyway?  But if parents loved him that much, that could backfire.  It could be a tough spot to be in, depending on if the bishop knew, how he reacted, and how much the parents trusted the guy.

And yes, I bet he came across as an incredibly nice guy.

I think if he was inviting kids from his primary class to sleep over (more than one at a time or was it one at a time), the accessibility being primary makes it his business. If you had youth leaders having sleepovers, that should be shut down. 
 

I think if the organization is where the relationship is formed and access given, it is very much a church issue. 

[3DOP]

What is my NDE? And does anyone know if I have shared it?

[bsjkki]

The plea agreement is complete crap too. He admitted to at least three victims. Society doesn’t take this stuff serious enough. 

There was  a lot left out of this article. Did he meet the kids through primary? Was he married? Did he have kids? 
 

*from another article 

‘The allegations against Sund were first reported to West Jordan police in summer 2018 when a girl from Sund’s primary class alleged he slept in the same bed with her and touched her inappropriately at sleepovers.’

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

From 2018

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kutv.com/amp/news/local/cultural-misunderstanding-says-lawyer-of-lds-primary-teacher-accused-of-child-sex-abuse

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kutv.com/amp/news/local/lds-primary-school-teacher-arrested-on-suspicion-of-child-sex-abuse
 

 

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think if he was inviting kids from his primary class to sleep over (more than one at a time or was it one at a time), the accessibility being primary makes it his business. If you had youth leaders having sleepovers, that should be shut down. 
 

I think if the organization is where the relationship is formed and access given, it is very much a church issue. 

I remember the days when it was common for Primary/Sunday School teachers to have parties at their homes for rewards for different things, but not sleepovers. And when I saw that the child was 8 years old it hurt my heart because I was a 7/8 year old's Primary teacher and remember how that was significant because that is readying them for baptism and I would attend those baptisms. I just think this is so disheartening and sickening. Preying on children while using a calling to do it. I feel for the church on how they can keep this from happening with youth leaders abusing like this, and all faiths and organizations.