Church Member in Rochester Going "Sam Young"

[pogi]

1 hour ago, pondering said:

132.

Do you have any evidence that anyone has been influence by section 132 to abuse children in the church today, or to spiritually justify the abuse of children within the modern church?   132 is about marriage, which some used to marry young women - but nowhere does it justify anything outside of marriage. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, pondering said:

I was given a 13 page confession letter, written by pencil after he was convicted (not allowed to use computer).  In the letter, it was the church - purity culture - false claims of authority  - he was told he was worthy, he was told he was a leader, he was told he was in the right.

I'm not sure I understand.  Are you suggesting that the letter suggested that the church knowingly supported him in abuse - that he "was in the right"? 

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, pondering said:

I was given a 13 page confession letter, written by pencil after he was convicted (not allowed to use computer).  In the letter, it was the church - purity culture - false claims of authority  - he was told he was worthy, he was told he was a leader, he was told he was in the right.

Were the leaders aware of his awful conduct? I would hope a leader would not knowingly keep an abuser in a leadership position. But, I am sure mistakes have been made. I do think the church can and is trying to do better at rooting out abuse and making sure leaders do not downplay or minimize behaviors and believe those who accuse them. Is there room for improvement? Yes. But, I would not take a 'confession' letter of an abuser as evidence of what leaders or the church told this person. The abuser is most likely a liar and will twist everything to excuse his own bad behavior or supposedly 'confess' a transgression but not give a full accounting in an attempt to not face the full consequences of their behavior. Abusers are manipulative liars and leaders do need to be trained enough to spot them and deal with them accordingly. The abuser is the real problem and sometimes, naive leaders get played. Put the blame squarely where it belongs. And yes, I know this from experience. Someone I love was told her dad confessed. They could not understand the lack of action by church leaders. The dad lied. He lied over and over again to everyone and it was not until the victim came forward that the true state of crimes was revealed. 

I am uncomfortable with Bishop youth interviews but am grateful for the changes the church has made in allowing parents to accompany the youth. They do not need to be in those interviews alone. But, in the case of abusive parents, I would hate to completely ban a child from meeting with a church leader without a parent but do believe the default should be having a parent present. Because bad people do exploit all organizations in attempts to find victims, safeguards do need to be in place. I know too many truly awful people who 'everybody loved' to think it wise for children to meet with adults one on one. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by bsjkki

[pondering]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Obviously I knew where you were going with that. Were there very young brides? Yes. Was there coercion? Yes. Is that a shameful part of church history? yes. So my disagreement with the semantics isn't meant to diminish the problem.

But "pedophle" and "child bride" have specific meanings which don't fit this early practice.

I also disagree with the claim that it was part of the "foundation" of the church. Even though it happened as a practice doesn't necessarily mean it was a foundation, in teaching, doctrine, or practice. 

 

132 is current church doctrine.  132 currently defines "heaven" for many members, including the current prophet who is a polygamist.  Yes, one wife is dead, but he still smiles and talks about his "wives", plural.

I do not see what happened in the early church as "marriage".  A child "bride" is not a bride.  I will call it for what it is.

Edited December 21, 2022 by pondering

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, pondering said:

132 is current church doctrine.  132 currently defines "heaven" for many members, including the current prophet who is a polygamist.  Yes, one wife is dead, but he still smiles and talks about his "wives", plural.

I do not see what happened in the early church as "marriage".  A child "bride" is not a bride.  I will call it for what it is.

That's fine.

But I think the specific language you are using to describe the problem "pedophle", "child bride", "foundation", is imprecise.

It seems clear (at least to me) that some of the early practices of polygamy with, in many cases, very young brides influenced later generations of individuals and off-shoot church's to also practice polygamy with young brides. This is awful. I think it is a bad fruit of that teaching. But nowhere have I seen anything about "pedophlia" or "child brides" as foundational to the church. Again, I think your choice of words in imprecise and therefore inaccurate.

[pondering]

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Were the leaders aware of his awful conduct? I would hope a leader would not knowingly keep an abuser in a leadership position. But, I am sure mistakes have been made. I do think the church can and is trying to do better at rooting out abuse and making sure leaders do not downplay or minimize behaviors and believe those who accuse them. Is there room for improvement? Yes. But, I would not take a 'confession' letter of an abuser as evidence of what leaders or the church told this person. The abuser is most likely a liar and will twist everything to excuse his own bad behavior or supposedly 'confess' a transgression but not give a full accounting in an attempt to not face the full consequences of their behavior. Abuser are manipulative liars and leaders do need to be trained enough to spot them and deal with them accordingly. The abuser is the real problem and sometimes, naive leaders get played. Put the blame squarely where it belongs. And yes, I know this from experience. Someone I love was told her dad confessed. They could not understand the lack of action by church leaders. The dad lied. He lied over and over again to everyone and it was not until the victim came forward that the true state of crimes was revealed. 

I am uncomfortable with Bishop youth interviews but am grateful for the changes the church has made in allowing parents to accompany the youth. They do not need to be in those interviews alone. But, in the case of abusive parents, I would hate to completely ban a child from meeting with a church leader without a parent but do believe the default should be having a parent present. Because bad people do exploit all organizations in attempts to find victims, safeguards do need to be in place. I know to many truly awful people who 'everybody loved' to think it wise for children to meet with adults one on one. 

Yes.

It ended his first temple marriage - she was blamed, not him.

He was in addiction support groups. 

When he was a kid, he attacked other neighborhood kids, parents refused to admit what happened.   He attacked his sisters friends.   Parents refused to acknowledge.   His mom was abused as a child, learned to dissociate, the same rationalizations used to dismiss and escape her own abuse were used to escape and avoid facing her son's problems.  Same with second wife.  

The church preaches forgive above escape, above fight back, above talk about it - the church teaches silence, endure, firgive, pray - generation after generation- I think there is genetics in it.  He said it was similar to a drug addict who was hooked after first dose.  It's genetic, some dating back to early church or before, yea, genealogy.

[pondering]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's fine.

But I think the specific language you are using to describe the problem "pedophle", "child bride", "foundation", is imprecise.

It seems clear (at least to me) that some of the early practices of polygamy with, in many cases, very young brides influenced later generations of individuals and off-shoot church's to also practice polygamy with young brides. This is awful. I think it is a bad fruit of that teaching. But nowhere have I seen anything about "pedophlia" or "child brides" as foundational to the church. Again, I think your choice of words in imprecise and therefore inaccurate.

Read dc 132 again if you do not see it as a foundation and requirement for the highest lds heaven.

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, pondering said:

Yes.

It ended his first temple marriage - she was blamed, not him.

He was in addiction support groups. 

When he was a kid, he attacked other neighborhood kids, parents refused to admit what happened.   He attacked his sisters friends.   Parents refused to acknowledge.   His mom was abused as a child, learned to dissociate, the same rationalizations used to dismiss and escape her own abuse were used to escape and avoid facing her son's problems.  Same with second wife.  

The church preaches forgive above escape, above fight back, above talk about it - the church teaches silence, endure, firgive, pray - generation after generation- I think there is genetics in it.  He said it was similar to a drug addict who was hooked after first dose.  It's genetic, some dating back to early church or before, yea, genealogy.

I know someone like this and it is sad that the 'abuser' is often believed over a victim. Sometimes, it does seem the bullies win because they will say and do anything and are usually expert manipulators and liars. The victims, on the other hand, do not have these skills. They are wounded, emotional, or may not react the way someone expects so are not believed. I've seen this happen too often. Sometimes, sounding the alarm about someone can put you in the crosshairs. For many, the default seems to be don't rock the boat. They do enable the creeps to get away with things. The creeps also know how to play systems. I was told certain abusive and harassing behaviors in my ward were 'between adults' and not the purview of ward leadership. They seemed to want to forget the victims of the harassment were found at church. But, unless people made a police report and the harassment then continued, nothing much could be done by the police or church authorities. The sad thing is, the ward is his 'hunting ground' and he finds his victims at church but knows enough not to cross too many lines and get in real trouble. 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, pondering said:

Read dc 132 again if you do not see it as a foundation and requirement for the highest lds heaven.

We do not believe or teach that plural marriage is a requirement for the highest heaven, despite believing that D&C 132 is scripture.

[HappyJackWagon]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We do not believe or teach that plural marriage is a requirement for the highest heaven, despite believing that D&C 132 is scripture.

That was a previous teaching.

1 hour ago, pondering said:

Read dc 132 again if you do not see it as a foundation and requirement for the highest lds heaven.

Again, you're equating things that aren't equal. Plural marriage is not the same thing as "pdphelia"

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That was a previous teaching.

Very true, there have been some leaders who have taught that (though I don't know that anyone specifically taught it as being forever applicable.  Also, I don't think there was ever a time in the church where everyone was required to live it, and those that weren't still seemed to be seen as "eligible" for exaltation as far as I can tell). 

I only meant that there is nothing in D&C 132 that says that about plural marriage.

[pondering]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We do not believe or teach that plural marriage is a requirement for the highest heaven, despite believing that D&C 132 is scripture.

It is good to see some of the changes that are happening in the church. 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That was a previous teaching.

Again, you're equating things that aren't equal. Plural marriage is not the same thing as "pdphelia"

To rationalize what happened in the early church is to rationalize pedophiles.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure I understand.  Are you suggesting that the letter suggested that the church knowingly supported him in abuse - that he "was in the right"? 

The church knew why his first marriage went south - they chose to believe him over his wife.  He was in addiction support groups for years and years - without correctly trained therapists leading those groups, they turned into an enabler for him.  He was able to tell himself that he was "getting the help that he needed", and family was complacent because he was going to the meetings.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you have any evidence that anyone has been influence by section 132 to abuse children in the church today, or to spiritually justify the abuse of children within the modern church?   132 is about marriage, which some used to marry young women - but nowhere does it justify anything outside of marriage. 

The same mindset within say - Jeff Warren - exists within many predators.  No one believes they are in the wrong, many believe they are called by god to do what they do, it is easy to rationalize and justify addictive behavior when past leaders have been justified in committing similar acts.    The LDS church - like Pentecostal, like JW's, engrain in members, from youth, that they are chosen, special, led by god, called out of all the billions of people in the world - leaders, better than everyone.  especially males, are taught they are the leader, they are the authority figures - this mindset is not healthy in someone who sees themselves called to have multiple wives, secret weddings, hidden relationships, church history is breeding grounds for anyone wishing to rationalize this behavior. 

 

Let's say you are talking with someone who shares some spiritual experience - ran across this one earlier today - 

"  Finally, one weekend in eighth grade, I "received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit" - the experience Pentecostal Christians seek after being saved. It means that you are filled with the Spirit, and usually speak in tongues as evidence.  My "baptism" experience was an ecstatic forty-five minutes of speaking in tongues, which felt like ten minutes. Even now, I believe it was a very special mystical experience, one which I am not sure how to interpret. It certainly was an altered state, with overwhelming feelings of total love and acceptance comparable with the spiritual transcendence experienced by people in a variety of spiritual traditions..." - link

Warren Jeff's wives still visit him.   ###'s wife still visits him, it would be breaking her covenant to divorce him, she is praised by members in her ward for her devotion, for continuing to refuse to work, for home-schooling the kids, for staying in the bubble.

I wonder, what would you say to someone who is convinced their actions were led by god?  The difference between your own experiences and theirs?  Allowed years ago but not now? god changes? ... hmmmmm...

If she was in your ward, what would you council her to do?  she's not going to get a job.  do you write her out the checks?  do you ask her to teach Sunday school?  

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, pondering said:

It is good to see some of the changes that are happening in the church. 

It is.  But to be clear, this change happened back in the late 1800s.

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, pondering said:

It is good to see some of the changes that are happening in the church. 

To rationalize what happened in the early church is to rationalize pedophiles.  

The church knew why his first marriage went south - they chose to believe him over his wife.  He was in addiction support groups for years and years - without correctly trained therapists leading those groups, they turned into an enabler for him.  He was able to tell himself that he was "getting the help that he needed", and family was complacent because he was going to the meetings.  

The same mindset within say - Jeff Warren - exists within many predators.  No one believes they are in the wrong, many believe they are called by god to do what they do, it is easy to rationalize and justify addictive behavior when past leaders have been justified in committing similar acts.    The LDS church - like Pentecostal, like JW's, engrain in members, from youth, that they are chosen, special, led by god, called out of all the billions of people in the world - leaders, better than everyone.  especially males, are taught they are the leader, they are the authority figures - this mindset is not healthy in someone who sees themselves called to have multiple wives, secret weddings, hidden relationships, church history is breeding grounds for anyone wishing to rationalize this behavior. 

 

Let's say you are talking with someone who shares some spiritual experience - ran across this one earlier today - 

"  Finally, one weekend in eighth grade, I "received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit" - the experience Pentecostal Christians seek after being saved. It means that you are filled with the Spirit, and usually speak in tongues as evidence.  My "baptism" experience was an ecstatic forty-five minutes of speaking in tongues, which felt like ten minutes. Even now, I believe it was a very special mystical experience, one which I am not sure how to interpret. It certainly was an altered state, with overwhelming feelings of total love and acceptance comparable with the spiritual transcendence experienced by people in a variety of spiritual traditions..." - link

Warren Jeff's wives still visit him.   ###'s wife still visits him, it would be breaking her covenant to divorce him, she is praised by members in her ward for her devotion, for continuing to refuse to work, for home-schooling the kids, for staying in the bubble.

I wonder, what would you say to someone who is convinced their actions were led by god?  The difference between your own experiences and theirs?  Allowed years ago but not now? god changes? ... hmmmmm...

If she was in your ward, what would you council her to do?  she's not going to get a job.  do you write her out the checks?  do you ask her to teach Sunday school?  

Pondering- look up the definition for that word. It doesn't apply. 

Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Bing video

IF it does somehow you'll need to provide some evidence. I am refusing to accept your characterization because you're using the wrong words but that does not mean I am rationalizing anything. This is growing tiresome. I'm out.

[smac97]

On 12/13/2022 at 6:25 PM, smac97 said:

Here:

This is in the "News" section of the website.

Well, I hope so.

I'm curious what "speak out against" means.

On Twitter, for example, he said this on 11/20:

Michael Benjamin on 12/13 to a pliant reporter: "Ultimately, the LDS Church is at the core of who I am and has made me the person that I am today."

Michael Benjamin on 11/20 on Twitter: "The @Ch_JesusChrist and @HollandJeffreyR have blood on their hands. This is what can happen when violent, homophobic rhetoric is spoken from the pulpit."

Nothing bespeaks affection like blood libel.

Another:

A few thoughts here:

The affidavit was compulsory.  "I make this declaration in response to a subpoena from Defendant, Michael Davis."

In the linked article above Michael Benjamin is quoted as follows: "I became more vocal in November 2020 when I learned that two local high-ranking church leaders submitted affidavits to the Dodge County Court in defense of Davis. One of these leaders is a prominent doctor at Mayo Clinic. These affidavits contained the same wording as well as, in my opinion, several inaccuracies. I later learned that the affidavits were written by LDS Church attorneys in Utah. In my opinion, this was an attempt by the LDS Church to cover-up the abuse and protect the church's reputation."

Nothing in the foregoing affidavit can be construed as being "in defense of Davis," nor is responding to a lawful subpoena acting "in defense of Davis."

The above affidavit is from Brent Larson, who per this article was the Branch President.  The other affiant was apparently "Rochester Stake President Randall Thomas, who is a medical director at Mayo Clinic."  Both affidavits apparently stated that "Davis was a church leader, but was not in a position of authority over children":

I think Benjamin is being dissembling here.  Yes, EQP is "a position of authority in the Church," but not with any stewardship or responsibility over children.  For pete's sake, we are up to our ears in "presidents" and counselors and such, all of which can be characterizes as "position{s} of authority in the Church."

Also this Tweet:

And on and on and on.  

Anyway, back to the original article:

Observant and faithful Latter-day Saints are also passionate about protecting children.

I'm not sure the "despite this" is warranted.  We would first need to figure out whether the local leadership in Utah was aware of Davis and his status.

That said, I think we have the means to do background checks now.  I think it's worth considering.

This, ladies and gents, is in a "news" item.

Yes, and Benjamin doesn't credit the Church for that policy.  Funny, that.

Moreover, the local leadership has to be aware of the conviction.

Or the third option: The leaders were not aware of his convictions.

Yeah, no.  This is not accurate.

Right.  'Cuz only he cares about "the children."  Per his own tweet: "The @Ch_JesusChrist does not care about protecting children."

What a guy.  

What a drama king.

Right.  Who could ever read public statements like "The @Ch_JesusChrist and @HollandJeffreyR have blood on their hands" and "The @Ch_JesusChrist does not care about protecting children" and consider him anything but "pro-LDS."

Time will tell, I suppose.  Personally, I don't think this will happen because the Church has been working very hard to develop resources and procedures for properly addressing allegations of abuse.  Moreover, the Church is situated fairly differently from the Catholic Church, as I have noted previously here:

Back to the article:

Hoo, boy.  

"Complete criminal background checks" for "all members" serving in "any leadership or volunteer position."

The cost of this would be, I think, astronomical.  Perhaps a criminal background check on members with callings where they interact with children/youths would be more feasible.

The Church already does this.

Moreover, there is apparently no empirical evidence that mandatory reporting laws are having any noticeable effect in curbing abuse.  See here.

There are "judgment call"-type situations, in which I think the Church should consider erring on the side of caution and contacting law enforcement.  I think this is already happening.

There are also instances in which the Clergy/Penitent Privilege can and ought to be preserved.  Calls to circumvent it are, I think, rooted in prejudice against religious groups.  By way of evidence for this: Nobody is calling for doctors or lawyers to have their communication privileges circumscribed.

Yes.  Attorneys who are familiar with the law.

What a load of crapola this has become.  

Bishops are frequently instrumental in detecting and intervening in abuse situations.

Another load of crapola.

The laws pertaining to Clergy/Penitent Privilege, mandatory reporting, ets., can be quite complex, can change over time, etc.  It makes no sense at all to punish the Church for providing a valuable resource to boots-on-the-ground leaders who need legal guidance.

Ah, the shibboleth of the relentless faultfinder: "More."

Wow.  He just careened across the border into "Patent Falsehood Land" with this one.

Thanks,

-Smac

The foregoing includes a discussion of the conviction of one Michael Adam Davis.

An update:

Quote

Michael Adam Davis, a former leader in the Kasson Church of Latter-Day Saints, appealed his 30-year criminal sexual conduct sentence in Minnesota’s appeals court Thursday, March 7.

Apparently Davis was serving as his ward's EQP at the time of his misconduct.

Quote

Davis was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, and one count of indecent exposure in front of a minor in 2022.

His defense attorney Aaron Roy argued Thursday that evidence the state used to claim that Davis had a position of authority over his alleged child victim — including text messages from Davis to a family member and the testimony of a former LDS church member who did not attend the Kasson church or know Davis personally — was unfair and prejudicial.

The "former LDS church member who did not attend the Kasson church or know Davis personally," but who nevertheless was called to testify, was likely the above-referenced Michael Benjamin.  See here:

Quote

The prosecution also called Michael Benjamin, a member of the church, to the stand. Benjamin has been a part of the Church of Latter Day Saints in Southeast Minnesota for 39 years, and testified he had been Elders Quorum President of a Southeast Minn. branch himself for a period of time.

He spoke about the hierarchy of power within the church, specifically the role of Elders Quorum President, saying that was the position Davis held in the Kasson branch at the time the reported abuse took place.

Benjamin also said that position entailed mentoring young men.

"There is a lot of respect and prestige for the Elders Quorum President title," Benjamin testified, going on to say that if the Elders Quorum President suggested one-on-one time with a young man, "There would be no questions asked."

The defense pointed out that Benjamin was never a member of the Kasson branch of the church and suggested that he had a personal agenda in this case. Benjamin has a lawsuit filed against the Church of Latter Day Saints Rochester Stake President, Randall Thomas.

I think Benjamin's testimony is a bit weird, as he was neither a percipient "fact" witness nor an "expert."  But I'm not sure his testimony moved the needle regardless.

Back to the first article:

Quote

Prosecuting attorney Peter Magnuson argued that even if the state had not presented text messages or used the outside LDS member’s description of church structures to demonstrate Davis’ authority, other statements by witnesses would have resulted in the defendant’s conviction.

Thanks,

-Smac