In such cases, following the prophet must lead to tripping over one's own sense of decency.
Posted on 12/13/2010 1:28:49 PM PST by Colofornian
...As many as 15 people who knew...Boise police officer...confessed to molesting babies...face no criminal charges.
...deputies...determined...leaders of...Latter-day Saints congregation that Stephen R. Young attended can’t be charged because of...clergy privilege law.
SNIP
...Young turned himself in...March 2... That was about two months after church officials say they first talked to Young about his crimes.
SNIP
...Ada County prosecutors say...Steve Nelson sexually abused as many as four children over a 30-year period...Nelson confessed to molesting one child to LDS officials, who learned of the crime from the victim but did not report it.
More than 20 years later, Nelson pleaded guilty...In 2009, the woman he...abused as a preteenager...caught him molesting a 3-year-old girl, according to court records.
Before sending Nelson to...prison...Judge Darla Williamson told him: “I...don’t understand...why the church didn’t require that law enforcement be involved with you. Possibly...we would have at least one less victim.”
...Tim Ryan is serving...probation...after pleading guilty...to...sexual abuse...Detectives say...the case...was dropped when the girl’s family wouldn’t cooperate with investigators. About the time the case was dropped, prosecutors said, the girl met with Ryan and an LDS bishop.
The victim told the Idaho Statesman last week that she had to attend a meeting with an LDS bishop and Ryan where she was asked to forgive Ryan....
“...I was really scared...They wanted me to forgive him. I was 14. I was put on the spot. What are you going to say?”
SNIP
...investigators and...prosecutors say Young could have abused as many as 20...victims over a 30-year period... Prosecutors say Young’s victims were infants or babies, 21 months of age or younger...all...family members or children of friends.
SNIP
Young’s wife first mentions...LDS Church in a...journal entry...says Young “was relying on (the bishop). He said (the bishop) made a lot of calls to keep him from going to jail.”...
(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...
Now watch one of them twist this into me supporting something illegal. Obviously untrue but par for the course.
Hooray - another Mormon-bashing thread.
What's your opinion of up to 13 Mormons...
...(I've excluded the bishop & stake president for reasons of clergy protection)...
...Even though Mormons have relished telling Christians for years that they don't have "paid clergy" like other churches...
...Re: them sitting on this information for about two months & didn't report it to the authorities?
You forgot to mention that the law also PREVENTS the clergy from revealing what they learn in a confession. I guess mentioning that fact doesn't fit your agenda of smearing any Mormon anywhere. A little honesty would be appreciated.
(And you forgot to mention that Mormons for years have relished mentioning they have no paid clergy! They don't really receive much "set-apart" theological or counseling training. Most of the time they already have full-time jobs & careers in addition to family responsibilities. And that even if we want to include, say, the Lds "bishop" and the stake president in such set-aside "clergy" aspects...that only takes care of "two" who have such a privilege...What about the other up to 13 members who knew for those early months?)
You know, POWG, a little forthrightness about those realities would be much appreciated.
Good question, CC.
I found these two comments from another Web site made today "interesting." (I assume Mormons made the comments; but I can't say that with certainty):
This comment was made from poster Alas @ www.newordermormon.org: When the wife went to the stake president, it was no longer a confessional, but a wife reporting what her husband had done and that by law should have been reported because it was NOT a confession. So, by their own standards of "we must protect the confessional" they didn't report when they should have.
Source: New Order Mormon: Did fellow Mormons cover up officer's baby molestations discussion
There ya have it: Mormons breaking the law by staying silent to protect a pedophile. (Well what'ya expect?...How many hundreds, if not thousands, of Mormons didn't "tattle" on the Mountain Meadow Massacre slaughterers of babies & children & their parents in the 1850s as that silence lingered into the 1860s, the 1870s, the 1880s, the 1890s, & then into the 20th century before taking it to their graves?)
My dad grew up in Mormon culture amongst Mormon people. He partially defended Mormons, saying, "They knew how to take care of their own."
(Well, I "guess" they do)
BTW, from the same source above, poster Zadok @ NewOrderMormon.org concluded:
If I am not mistaken, I believe the instructions to the Bishops and Stake Presidents of the Church are to notify authorities. The greater good of protecting the innocent children, (and of course the good name of the Church) trump the sanctity of the confessional in these circumstances.
Me! ME!
I LIKE it rough!
Slap me with some and let's see what you've got; Big Boy!
I think you've read the title improperly:
The kids weren't BASHED - just MOLESTED!
Nt ME!
I'll merely ask a simple question:
"Was Joseph Smith within his rights to smash, bash and destroy the printing press that ultimately led to his death?"
(You just MIGHT be able to answer YES or NO with out a link.)
A forum for those who have chosen to remain connected with the LDS church for personal reasons and in spite of church history or present practices.
Says the arm-less man. Of all the Mormon defenders, you are probably the least qualified to make this statement. You have been challenged dozens upon dozens of times to back up your blanket accusations with a specific example. To the best of my recollection, you never have answered the request and either run for the hills or post that inane standard response with the list of readings that everyone is supposed to sift through to find the answer.
If Mormonism contains truth, no one has ever heard it uttered from your lips. Come on, Paragon Defender, man up and let's hear something of substance someday. If you are afraid of being accused of defending a pedophile by defending the "church" in this thread, respond in another thread with something of substance. You won't have long to wait, the dike of Mormonism is springing holes everywhere and the Mormons don't have enough fingers to plug them all.
LOL
[I'm not sure if Paragon-Bot is programmed accordingly...may need to address his creator]
Aptly said. And please repeat.
Certainly, it has all the recipe ingredients to repeat, spam-wise, as much as PD's spamming!
What is this obsession around here with all things Mormon? So odd.
BTW - did you know that your screen name comes from a Latin word? That must have been a surprise to you. ROTFL
So the attorney for the LDS “church” says that it did not do anything wrong. Wow! What a surprise! Come on, Restornu, even you have to take an attorney’s statement about his client’s innocence with a grain of salt. This attorney specializes in “child abuse cases for the church” in Salt Lake City? Exactly how much work does he get?
***
...seems Colofornian, you have troubling with being upfront!
“From the excerpted article: Additionally, Idaho Code 9-203 and criminal rule of evidence 505 govern confidential communication. If a clergy member, against an individual’s wishes, reports something confessed privately, the clergy would be violating the law and could be sued, Austin said.
You forgot to mention that the law also PREVENTS the clergy from revealing what they learn in a confession. I guess mentioning that fact doesn’t fit your agenda of smearing any Mormon anywhere. A little honesty would be appreciated.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2642055/posts?page=24#24
It's actually quite insightful to see how mormon apologetics on the interwebz operates.
Do I really need to repeat myself?
#1 Mormonism has no paid clergy. When you go to their meeting buildings, they are often locked because their bishops usually have full-time jobs and the janitor's role isn't to talk with you.
#2 Even if you want to extend "clergy privileges" to non-clergy like Lds bishops & stake presidents, then there ya go. That's "two" members from the local ward & stakehouses. That's hardly the "up to 15" mentioned in all the articles running across the nation about this matter.
Are you really telling me that each Mormon meetinghouse has 15 clergymen????????????
#3 As one of the apparent "Mormons" @ NewOrderMormon.org stated, it was the pedophile's wife who initiated contact with her bishop and told on him. IOW, at some point, the bishop had solid second-hand information that was not in the form of a direct "confession" to him. He could have chose to turn him in at that point; certainly he could have chose to encourage the wife to turn him in.
At that point, the bishop -- nor the perpetrator -- was operating under any such "clergy privilege."
What's interesting in all of this is the concentric circle cover-up of darkness that extends, ripple effect like, upon the entirety of Mormondom.
* This perp commits his crimes. Then he gets his wife to be a co-conspirator in staying silent about it for almost half a year.
* Who knows how many family members with babies she felt obligated to warn -- to keep them away from her husband. Did they spill the beans? (No)
* She finally goes to her bishop. Her bishop also chooses to immediately stay silent and not opt for protecting babies and toddlers and who knows who else.
* The cone of silence then extends to 15 Mormon leaders...and who knows who else who heard about it from them via conversations (wives; perhaps a few of them passed on the info). Did any of them tell the authorities? (No!) (For up to two months, no!)
* Other Mormon members then hear the cop's been ex-communicated. Of course, they want to know the "why?" And even though I'm sure no details were given, somebody probably at least answered the "bottom line" question by stating "sexual abuse" -- even if no other details were given. Did any of them press anybody to go to the authorities? (Apparently not...not until one member actually called the perpetrator)
* Finally, the ripple effect of darkness in this case now settles upon Freeper Mormons & Mormons everywhere who opt for protecting the pedophile and the people who protected him ... vs. the safety of other possible victims. They come on these threads and start defending a pedophile and his protectors apparently because of PR spin & identity socio-politics. What they wouldn't advocate or claim or recommend any other church do -- is now "A-OK" because there were Mormons involved.
The circle of darkness is complete: People's posture on how to handle a pedophile becomes turned upside down. I've seen it happen with homosexuality. Somebody against the sin of homosexuality comes to eventually "celebrate" the lifestyle just because they "know" a family member or friend who is one. And so they become lifestyle converts and start defending the homosexual lifestyle.
Now, I'm not saying anybody here "celebrates" pedophilia. But what I am saying -- Lurkers, ALL: Look @ all the posts from Mormons on these kinds of threads...those from POWG & Paragon Defender & Restornu. Do they ever mention the baby victims? (No -- not usually)
Is their compassion with the victims? (By their lack of fruits, you shall know them)
The all-consuming cult consumes them. Defend the cult at all costs; not its members victims. Toss the babies under the bus. It just seems blindness to evil is rather epidemic in some circles.
In such cases, following the prophet must lead to tripping over one's own sense of decency.
First of all,
As to the perp, it’s clear to me that the carbon lifeform he inhabits needs to be exterminated. I see no redemptive value in keeping him or lifeforms like him in existence.
Now,
If you had bothered to read the article, it would have told you. It would have told you a lot of interesting things regarding the behavior of the supposed “great lay clergy that mormons have” (that has NO professional training btw) and how they managed to mishandle this issue.
The mormons had many opportunities to get this information to the Sheriff’s Dept. I can kind of understand the wife’s position and her mental state probably had a lot to do with her not reporting this. I can’t imagine what goes through a woman’s mind when she hears that her husband molests little girls. But then again, hell hath no fury...
If there is a will, there is a way. “Word” gets around. The clucking hen network of news knows and says a lot. I find it absolutely unbelieveable that a matter of this magnitude was able to be kept secret.
What I find interesting is the 15 number. 3 Bishopric members (but not all had to know about it). 3 Stake High Counselors and then the wife. So, we have potentially 7 people who would have been in the know, where did the other 8 come from?
The mormon authorities just don’t appear to have had the will in this case to press this and get him off the streets sooner.
In any other instance, many here would look at the responses/reasons given by the “clergy” here and would have called bullsqueeze on it and rightfully so.
Yet, because a couple of mormons and apologists don’t like it, we’re not supposed to?
I see absolutely no empathy towards the victims here from the mormons or their cabal of apologetic defenders.
It does boggle the min that anyone would defend a baby molester.
It is true lds trumps everything else.
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.