Posted on 02/21/2006 10:02:21 AM PST by Colofornian
PROVO — A Brigham Young University assistant professor has resigned after being arrested Thursday night for investigation into allegations that he taped and watched pornographic videos of a 14-year-old girl on his computer.
The 63-year-old man is being investigated for sexual exploitation of a minor, a second-degree felony, and voyeurism, a class-A misdemeanor, after Provo police found a video clip of a girl undressing on a laptop computer belonging to BYU.
The Deseret Morning News does not name arrested persons until charges are filed.
Acting on a tip, Provo police approached the man at his home and took him to the police station where it was determined the information he provided was sufficient to warrant his arrest, said Provo Police Capt. Rick Healey.
Police confiscated the computer and are continuing to search for other videos they believe are on the computer's hard drive, Healey said.
Investigators believe the videos were created using a hidden camera in either a bedroom or a bathroom and were done without the victim's knowledge, Healey said.
The man was released Friday afternoon after posting $7,500 bail. He will be in 4th District Court next Friday for a first appearance.
The man worked as an assistant professor of information systems at the Marriott School of Management and has been teaching at BYU since 1988 until he resigned Friday afternoon, said BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said.
"The situation is of grave concern to us," she said. "We are taking the appropriate measures to handle this situation. We are cooperating fully with the Provo City Police Department."
According to the probable cause statement filed in 4th District Court by Provo police, the man told investigators that he was sexually aroused by watching the videos and that is why he kept the files on his computer.
Pornography is a major factor in a large majority of sexual abuse or assault crimes, Healey said.
Healey said the three detectives that work solely in Provo's sex crimes unit are "completely overwhelmed" by the volume of investigations.
Clinical psychologist Allan Roe said he sees close to 25 people a week in his Orem office, many of whom are struggling with addictions to explicit magazine, movie and Internet images.
"One out of three (people) that I deal with have pornography problems," said Roe, who specializes in treating people with such addictions. "It's an ongoing issue and it's only getting worse. And I only deal with the ones who want to solve the problem."
The crippling problem hurts not only the addicted individual but the spouse, children and the community at large, Roe said.
"People ... in high positions, political or financial positions or church positions, (that you would think) wouldn't have those kinds of problems. We all know that they do. We deal with them every day."
The judicial system is also dealing with the effects of pornography.
This past Thursday, Lehi resident Roger Wilkins was sentenced to one year in the Utah County Jail for sexually abusing a young girl.
Fourth District Court Judge Lynn Davis ruled that Wilkins should undergo some type of pornography-addiction treatment, because of its impact on his behavior.
"I'm convinced that there is a genesis at length between (viewing pornography) and the unfortunate activity here," Davis told Wilkins.
1 Cor 11
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
When you allow your enmity towards another consumed you neighter wins!When one lives by the law they are judge by the LAW!
When one Keeps the Commandments of the Lord they live in grace!
So I must remind my self to try to advoid these types of threads less I too fall under the Law!
I'll be there....at the wedding feast.
should read: We don't cut peoples heads off, anymore.
If you keep reading Matthew 7, you’ll soon read in verse 15: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Matthew 7:15
Notice these false prophets "come to you in sheep's clothing"-- in other words they are "masquerading" as Christians! And yet, according to the Lord Jesus Christ – "they are ravening wolves." According to the Lord Jesus Christ – Beware: some "so-called" Christians – are "ravening wolves"!
How can we tell the "sheep" from the "wolves" unless we "judge" or "determine"?
How can we do as our Lord commanded and "beware of false prophets" unless we "judge" them by the word of God?
If we do not "judge" or "decide" their error by the word of God, how do we even know they are in error?
Just because someone "sings" about the Lord Jesus Christ, are we to not "judge" their "songs", "conversation", and "testimony"? Because someone professes to be a Christian should we accept whatever they say and do as "right" and "pleasing to God"?
Most people don’t know, but Hitler claimed to be a Christian. In fact, Hitler’s campaign was "Positive Christianity". Because Hitler professed to be a Christian, should we just "ignore" the terrible acts he did? Should we read Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" and say "What gives you the right to judge Hitler?" Nonsense. We as Christians are to expose and "judge" ERROR by the word of God.
Most people don’t know, but Hitler claimed to be a Christian. In fact, Hitler’s campaign was "Positive Christianity". Because Hitler professed to be a Christian, should we just "ignore" the terrible acts he did? Should we read Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" and say "What gives you the right to judge Hitler?" Nonsense. We as Christians are to expose and "judge" ERROR by the word of God.
LDS is short for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The name is quite long, some of us will substitute LDS at times.
Except for Mark Hofmann
We don't cut peoples heads off
I agree. Good thing the Danites (destroying angels) or the Mountain Meadow Massacre folks aren't around, any more, eh?
But the names Porter Rockwell, Bill Hickman and the Danites do ring a historical bell, don't they?
>>Please refrain from equating Mormons and Muslims. We don't ...blow ourselves
>>up in crowded places...
>>Except for Mark Hofmann
Not representing Mormons, he didn't, he blew up people whom he thought would expose him for forging documents to embarrass the church. He did not intend to blow himself up (Bad bomb maker, bad Ex Member).
>> Good thing the Danites (destroying angels) or the Mountain Meadow Massacre
>>folks aren't around, any more, eh?
Mountain Meadow Massacre was investigated, and Mormons executed the only guy they could prove was there.
The Danites, were supposedly a group that formed a secret pact. The church forbids secret societies.
The Danites, if they even really existed, would have been excommunicated as soon as they were found out. (Interesting that you bring up Mark, since he forged some of the documents supposedly implicating Joseph in knowledge of the Danites).
Porter Rockwell, a mountain man, and a sheriff (I live near Porter's Place, good steaks there). Not a man you want to cross, but honorable, tough guy living in frontier times, killed when he had to, arrested when possible. Really interesting history was he perfect, no, was he a terrorist, you’ve got to be kidding! Go read even a little bit about the man.
So, in your mind if a member of a group errs, all members of that group (even if they teach against that activity) are guilty, punishment of the guilty cannot expunge the group’s guilt, escape by the guilty who were sought does not expunge the guilt, find the worst apple in any barrel, and call all the rest the same? Is that your approach?
I will iterate (re –Iterate is not a word) Mormons do not blow them selves up in crowded places, nor do we behead others (Or ourselves just for clarification).
You by your posts here are a bitter, twisted individual with a grudge against Mormons. You cannot stand to see a positive statement go by with out a challenge.
In all sincerity, get some help.
1. This is an outright lie! Mormons did not "execute" J.D. Lee. The courts did.
2. Show me even one example ANYWHERE that says he was the "only guy they could prove was there."
You are full of BS....but then again, I understand where you get it! Maybe you should seek help for your compulsive lying.
TESTIMONY OF PHILIP KLINGENSMITH IN THE FIRST TRIAL OF JOHN D. LEE July 23-24, 1875
Prosecution: Where did you reside in 1857?
Witness: At Cedar City.
Q: How long had you previously resided there?
A: I believe from '52 - '51 or '52.
Q: Do you know where the Mountain Meadows are located?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Describe to the jury where the Mountain Meadows are located.
A: Located about 45 miles (between that and 50) from Cedar City on the old California Road.
Q: In what county?
A: Now, in Washington County. Then, in Iron.
Q: In what territory?
A: In Utah Territory.
Q: Are you acquainted with John D. Lee?
A: I am.
Q: Were you acquainted with him in 1857?
A: At what time?
Q: In 1857.
A: Yes, sir. I was there at the massacre.
Q: I want you to state to the jury what you know in relation to the massacre and about what time it was.
A: As near as I can recollect, it was in September. I can't tell you the day or the date. I think it was toward the last-probably about the middle.
Q: That year was it?
A: It was in '57.
Q: Won't you relate to the jury the circumstances, as you know them, in relation to the massacre of which you speak. Just commence in your own way and relate the circumstances.
A: The first that I know of the company coming in?
Q: Yes, sir,
Defense counsel: We suggest that a more limited question be put to the witness.
Prosecution: State what you know about it.
Defense: [He] can't give any testimony except about John D. Lee.
*Note: He was stopped from giving testimony except about John D. Lee.
Prosecution: Go on and state the details.
Defense: If he goes on and narrates in his own way, we will have no chance to object until the objectionable matter has gone to the jury.
Prosecution: It is the first time in the progress of the trial that the defendant has attempted to direct the manner of the prosecution.
Judge-to the witness: Don't detail any hearsay matter.
Prosecution: Go on, and state what you know of that massacre, and who were engaged ill it, but don't state any hearsay testimony.
Witness: I will as far as I know. The first thing I shall mention is when I heard of this company coming from Salt Lake. I heard of the emigrants coming down here, and learned that the people were forbidden to trade with them; that there was a great deal of feeling some way or other, and it made me feel, to tell the truth, bad about it when I heard it. Finally the company came on to Cedar City and I happened to be down at the little town. There is about a mile difference between the two towns. I didn't at first see but a few of them-three or four at the mill getting a grist down of some wheat they had bought from Mr. Jackson. I went on up home to the upper city. This was probably-might have been-Friday. I heard there was some disturbance through the emigrants swearing in town. And I heard that John M. Higbee had fined them.
Defense: We don’t want that hearsay.
Witness: However, let that go as it will, it don't make much difference here nor there. This, I think, was about Friday - if I remember it must have been about Friday, to the nearest of my recollection. This company went on from there, and I still heard rumors that I shall not say anything about, now. On Sunday, as was the usual custom of having meetings - and President and Council, High Council, Bishop's Council- all the afternoon, and talking things and matters over. And directly when the Council met, this thing came up.
Q: I will ask you if you held any position, and if so, what?
A: I was not in any military order. I was a Bishop.
Defense: We object to the statement about the council. That is a matter between other parties. Unless the question is put in another form, we object to it.
Prosecution: We will connect it.
Judge: They propose to connect the question with it.
Defense: This is not a charge of combination [conspiracy]: John D. Lee is charged with murder, not with combining with a1lybody. If Mr. Lee was not there, it is incompetent. It is your duty to connect him with it. Unless you can show that John D. Lee was one of that Council, the statement of the proceeding of that Council is incompetent.
Judge: Either party can commence either at the beginning or middle or end of their testimony. It is a rule I have been used to for many years, and I think it is the best rule. They promised to connect the defendant with this. If they don’t, the Court will have to strike it out.
Defense: Your Honor will please note our exception to that ruling, until it appears that John D. Lee was a member of that Council, or was present.
Prosecution: Go on and state what took place at that Council.
Witness: This question of those emigrants, and their destruction, came before us at that time; and there was ...
Q: Of whom was that Council composed?
A: Haight, Higbee, myself - I could not tell all the names of them; Morill was there, Ira Allen, and Wesley Willis I think was there.
Q: What is Haight's full name?
A: His first name is Isaac C. Haight.
Q: What occurred?
A: This thing was talked over.
Defense: We object to that question. Now, it appears affirmatively that John D. Lee was not there; and he is not connecting him with it.
Judge: On the same ground that they have promised to connect, they may do it by some other witness.
Defense: Exception.
Prosecution: Go on and state what happened there.
Witness: This question came up and there was some of the brethren opposed to such a proposition - and when it came to my turn, I opposed it. There were others that were opposed to it, too. Haight jumped up and broke up the meeting, and went outdoors. Then a proposition was made there. The question I asked them was this: what would be the consequences provided such a thing should take place.
Q: What did they propose to do?
A: They didn't propose to do anything particular when this thing was talked about.
Q: What was said?
A: I have stated all that I can remember.
Q: What was the substance of what was said?
A: It was their- the substance was for their destruction, and I opposed it.
Q: For their destruction by whom?
A: Their destruction was proposed by the Indians. I cannot say positively that the whites were going to do it from there. Then the meeting broke up, and on Monday morning, down below the old fort wall there was several of us met together, again.
Q: Who?
A: Isaac C. Haight, Higbee, myself, Joel White, and I don't recollect anyone else. The talk came up again about these emigrants coming. There they were not yet at Cedar. I got onto the same subject again, and opposed it, and asked questions about it, and said for my part I would like to see these people go through unmolested. Haight then replied, "you may go with Mr. White over to Pinto Creek [a small settlement close to Mountain Meadows] with a letter and tell the people there that these people shall [be allowed to] go through, and try and pacify the Indians - for that people to go through." That is all.
Q: Did you go over there?
A: I did. I went over there. I started in the afternoon.
Q: Who accompanied you?
A: Joel White went with me. We started in the afternoon, and met John D. Lee down at the lower end of the field. Probably two and a half miles from town. Lee asked, "Where are you going?" White replied, "We are going to see that these people go through unmolested." He [Lee] said, "I have something to say in that matter, and I will see to it." We made no reply. We went on. He went to Cedar. I knew not anything more of him till afterwards.
Q: Was that all he said at the time?
A: It was all he said at that time. Now, then, I went out that evening and got there in the night-past these emigrant's company at Iron Springs, five mile outside of Pinto Creek. And the next morning as they were drawing out from camp, we passed back and went on our way together back to Cedar.
Q: How many of the emigrants were there?
A: I never counted them. There was a good many.
Q: Of what class?
A: I should suppose the train composed of twenty or thirty wagons.
Q: About how many people?
A: I could not tell you.
Q: Approximate.
A: It appears as though there was a hundred or more.
Q: How was it with reference to sex and age?
A: There was old men, middle aged men, old women, young women and children.
Q: After you passed them, state what occurred.
A: I came on towards home and met a man named Ira Allen, beyond where we met Lee about four miles. That was the day following. We didn't know what was up, and Ira Allen stated right out...
Defense: Objection.
Prosecution: We will connect Mr. Allen as one of the conspirators in this affair.
Judge: Go ahead, the objection is overturned.
Defense: Note our exception.
Q: Go on, state what occurred.
A: He said that the doom of the emigrants that went out there was sealed, that the die was cast, the doom fixed for their destruction, that John D. Lee had orders from headquarters at Parowan to take men - go around below and go out. He had orders to go to Pinto Creek and countermand what I and Mr. White had been to Pinto Creek and tried to do.
Q: What else was done, then?
A: I know nothing more about it. I went home.
White lived in the lower town, and I went up to my place pretty fatigued from riding. I don't know anything more about what was going on. Only about rumors, until about three days afterwards. Then Haight, living over at the iron works in a little house, sent down McFarlane there to me, to come over there. I went over behind his house. He there told me this story.
Defense: We object to anything Mr. Haight may have told this witness.
Judge: Overruled.
Defense: Defendants take exception.
Witness: He told me there was orders came in from camp last night. Says he, "They hadn't got along as they anticipated, and the news came in to me for reinforcements, and I immediately went over to Parowan and there got further orders what to do."
Q: Did he say who gave these orders?
A: Yes, sir. I will say, by and by. He said he came home in the night with these orders from Co!. Dame that in order to finish the massacre they was to decoy them out and to spare nothing but the small children that could not tell the tale. That is what he told me. I went down to the old town then directly. He told me to go down there, and I happened to come right in front of Ira Allen's house. There, John M. Higbee, Ira Allen, and Charlie Hopkins were right in front of his dooryard. And as I stepped up, John Higbee says, "You are ordered out armed, and equipped as the law directs, to go to the Mountain Meadows." And so I went.
Defense: If you’re Honor please, this is another party that the witness has brought in, and makes statements of John M. Higbee that are not connected with Mr. Lee.
Judge: I will overrule the objections on the same grounds as before.
Defense: Exception.
Witness: I went and fitted up, got my animal and gun and ammunition and went out.
Q: Who went with you?
A: Charlie Hopkins went out with me, and John M. Higbee, and I think possibly that John Willis went with a wagon and Sam McMurdy with a baggage wagon.
Q: Where did you go to?
A: We started-the rest I cannot remember. We started over there, and when we got to Hamblin's ranch in the night-sometime in the night-I don't exactly recollect ...
Q: Jacob Hamblin's?
A: Yes, sir. The ranch was about three miles this side of where the emigrants were camped. Well, there was Lee and some others-not a great many from the camp, where the general camp was, passed up further, by a. spring. When this party that had gone out from Cedar, they composed quite a little number of men. Then we began to find out that they [the emigrants] was not all killed, as it was represented, while there was a few more ...
Defense: We object to the statement of individuals.
Prosecution: Who do you mean by some?
A: Those that I mentioned. I can mention some names that was there. There was John D. Lee, John M. Higbee, myself - there was Hopkins, Ira Allen, and there was another man, died since, Wiley. I don't recollect anybody else. Lee called us out to one side ...
Q: Was George Adair there?
A: I don't think he was, I cannot say.
Q: Was William C. Stewart?
Defense: Objected to as leading.
Witness: They were not at this place. What I was going to refer to ...
Q: Go on and explain to the jury what place you refer to.
A: He called us out, these names, a little to one side and we had a consultation about the instructions that came through Higbee to him from Col. Dame at Parowan.
Q: A little to one side of what?
A: Of the ranch.
Q: You speak of a branch of the brethren?
A: They might have been ten or fifteen rods from the rest, up in the mouth of the little wash; there Lee stated the circumstances of the situation-and that the emigrant train ...
Q: Relate what he stated, as near as you can remember.
A: He stated they had strong fortifications; that there was no possible chance to get them out that he knew of. Then Higbee, having orders, says, "Orders is from me to you that they are to be decoyed out and disarmed, got out in any manner the best way you can." There it was agreed upon and the command was given to John D. Lee to carry out the whole scheme........
Q: What was done then?
A: We went back, and the orders was to go up to the springs where the Indians and these southern soldiers were camped. At the spring, a way off, this side of the ground.
Q: What do you mean by these soldiers?
A: White men - southern [Utah] soldiers-those that carne from Washington County and around, so far as I know. Directly after we got up there, Lee called them into a hollow square and there talked to them - to the soldiers that were there; but I don't remember all that were there.
Q: How, and of whom, was that hollow square formed?
A: It was formed of white men, but I could not give the names of the persons, with the exception of a few.
Q: About how many in number?
A: I should judge there was fifty, so far as I recollect.
I would say this is more than convincing testimony (and there are others who testified) that there were many men present. He also outlines facts about the Nauvoo Legion.
I have found no credible evidence that Judge Cradlebaugh was a Mormon. He was a federal Judge appointed by President Buchanan.
That the Jury consisted of Mormons would be of no surprise since they were almost exclusively the only residents of Utah except the native indians.
But, with the testimony of Phillip Klingensmith and others implicating the local Church leaders in directing the Massacre, it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to believe those same leaders could direct the jury as to what their finding would be.
I found this quote on the internet regarding Judge John Cradlebaugh:
November 1858
U. S. District Judge John Cradlebaugh arrives in Utah and begins to take an immediate interest in prosecuting those responsible for the massacre. Prosecution will be frustrated by a Utah law that places jury selection in the hands of Mormon officials.
>>I won't apologize. If you would have searched you would
>>have found the truth. Lying can also me repeating an
>>untruth.
If you have googled this as I have, you would see that there are many accounts, most conflicting in their details. As I have stated, I was not there, and there fore am wary of hearsay, the defense in the section of testimony correctly objected to hearsay in this trial.
I am not a Lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
I do know that much of this testimony would be stricken in a modern court. In the testimony you have here PHILIP KLINGENSMITH has not stated that he saw anyone shoot the innocent. Philip states that he was ordered to arm himself and go to the meadow. Philip also gave testimony about hearing that "John D Lee was ordered by ‘Leaders’ to do ‘Something’". I believe John was probably was told to do something, by someone, but I have not seen where it was credibly established that he ever told us who, and what. I wish he had, but the defense probably wouldn't allow that.
I did not lie. I stated what I believed. If that is lying, then you are also a liar, since I am sure you stated a belief only to be proven wrong later at least once in your life (I am not admitting that I am mistaken, only the possibility of such since I WAS NOT THERE).
Were you there?
Is it even remotely possible that you are wrong?
Do all the stories about this agree?
Lie: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie )
Definition 2
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Unless I am mistaken, you do not have the ability to discern my thoughts. I have plainly stated that I do not have all the facts, since I was not there and the record at best is convoluted, at worst contradictory. I believe this is on purpose as people with “axes to grind” then, and now twist the record to their liking. How is the remote observer from the time, such as myself ever to know the truth?
BTW I agree that John D. Lee was not alone, I agree that Mormons had the majority of the population, and probably controlled the juries by virtue of their shared beliefs. There is no evidence that I have seen to prove collusion to thwart justice by any but the defense (which is kind of their job). I have even seen wild accusations about Brigham young directly being involved by traveling down to preside personally over the destruction. (Which seems highly unlikely to me).
In short, I feel I will never know with certainty exactly what happened there, and those who do know are safely in their graves.
Those who state that they know, short of some special ability to time travel are either less analytical than I, or have an axe of their own to grind for personal reasons.
You decide how you wish to proceed, but unless you can prove I was purposeful in telling an untruth, you will just have to owe me that apology (that’s ok, I can wait :-)
BTW Calm down, you seem very heated about this, and unless you are far older than I think you are, you were not there either.
I have stated before. many times on FR, that John D Lee is an ancestor of mine. If his beloved Church whom he spent his entire life in defending, won't defend him, then I must.
In my opinion, when you distort the truth that is known, then you are lying, but only you Delphi, know what is in your heart. I've called you to the mat on the statement before that Mormons found JD Lee guilty and executed him. If you don't want to call it a lie, then call it a distortion.
John D. Lee remained a local LDS leader for years (as did all the other participants) after MMM. He was often in the company of Brigham Young.
I've never suggested Brigham Young was involved directly in MMM, I don't think he was.
I am an expert of sorts, I have studied the MMM extensively. I understand both the "official" church position and the anti-Mormon position. I have read diaries not only of JD Lee, but several of his contemporaries. I know what evidence has been published and what evidence has not been. I don't try to blame anyone, but I do try to show that Lee was not solely responsible. That is truth, documented and undeniable.
I understand the persecution the "saints" had experienced. They may have been well within their rights to retaliate against what they may have considered an eminent threat.
Your post stating ...Mormons found Lee guilty and executed him... was a distortion IMHO, unless you would have also stated that Mormons were implicated in the affair, and that Mormons may have, in fact, issued the command to do the deed. That would have been more honest, again IMHO.
"Mormons are more dishonest in business dealing than most people. I know that from personal experience and conversations with other business people.
Sex abuse within Mormonism is also higher than the norm."
What a ridiculous statement, based on your own personal experience and prejudice. Mormons are no more or less dishonest and no more or less sexually abusive than a member of any other religion. If you have supporting evidence to the contrary please share it with us.
Here is just one link. There are many, many more. google is your friend.
http://www.moriel.org/discernment/mormonism/mormon_tv_ads.htm
Some sources are very Mormon friendly.
I'm not a Mormon, but you are a bigot.
I also don't believe everything I google.
You're comments make sweeping generalities about a fairly large community of people. There may be some Mormons who fit your description, but not all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.