Sunday School Teacher Arrested on Molestation Charges (police say he molesting a 12-year-old boy)

kxtv ^

[chance33_98]

Sunday School Teacher Arrested on Molestation Charges

Sacramento police have arrested a 36-year-old Sunday school teacher on charges of molesting a 12-year-old boy.

Christopher Todd Hettiger was a church elder and taught Sunday school for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on Rio Tierra Avenue in south Natomas.

Hettiger apparently met the boy and his mother through the church and hired the woman as a housekeeper. The boy attended Hettinger's Sunday school class and stayed overnight at Hettiger’s home on several occasions.

According to police, the case broke when the boy no longer wanted to visit Hettiger. When his mother asked why, he revealed the alleged molested, which had been going on for more than a year.

Hettiger also worked in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program four years ago. His many contacts with young people have raised suspicions that there might be additional victims.

According to investigators, Hettinger has no criminal record. He is self-employed, working out of his house as a computer consultant.

Anyone with information on the case is asked to call (916) 443-HELP.

[tracer]

I was referring to the Lord's Church and not Satan as you do. But you knew that, didn't you??

[Wrigley]

I consider your church to be Satanically inspired.

[Grig]

"We take our marching orders directly from the Lord and from the Scriptures and His prophets."

LOL, you deny there are prophets in this age and have only the opinons of men to guide you in your study of the scriptures. Those who killed Christ would claim the same thing as you, the blind are leading the blind.

"So why should we "give honest consideration to anything (you) have to say."

I could say so that you don't look like an arrogant, closed minded jerk, but it's a bit late for that I guess. Thanks at least for proving my point.

[Grig]

I forgive you, now forgive me for I just did the same thing in my reply.

[scripter]

Let's take one at a time.

"Jesus was conceived by physical union between God the Father and Mary" - IS NOT AND NEVER WAS LDS DOCTRINE.

Okay - you say the above is not and never was Mormon doctrine.

How do you reconcile that with the following:

• Brigham Young taught: "The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood---was begotten of his Father as we were of our fathers" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.115); and "when the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness [flesh and blood]. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.50).
• Brigham Young insisted: "I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ...he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.211); "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.51).
• Orson Pratt (LDS apostle) taught: "the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife…as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity" (The Seer. p.158, 1853).
• Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: "The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended by any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit" (Religious Truths Defined, p.44).

This teaching persists today:

• Bruce McConkie (LDS apostle) states: "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547, 1979).
• Carfred Broderick (Mormon author) writes: "God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone...latter-day prophets have made it clear that despite what it says in Matthew 1:20, the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus...The Savior was fathered by a personage of flesh and bone" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn, 1967, p.100-101).

Despite the well-documented position of previous Mormon prophets, presidents, and apostles about the nature of Christ's conception, modern LDS apologists maintain that "Christ was born of a virgin". How can they? By changing the definition of the word "virgin". The reasoning goes like this: since Mary had sexual relations with an immortal man, not a mortal man, the phrase "virgin birth" still applies.

• McConkie explains: "Suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" (The Promised Messiah, p. 466).

[wai-ming]

So why should we "give honest consideration to anything (you) have to say.

So that you can understand where they are coming from and give a decent answer to their questions.

One of my favorite quotes from Stephen R. Covey is "Seek first to understand; then to be understood."

I think this applies to both sides of the Mormon/Non-Mormon debate.

[tracer]

LOL.....

[restornu]

I guess it was an over sight of you wrigley I did apologized to you!

***

To Wrigley | 12/16/2002 11:38 PM MST sent

If I was unkind to you I apologized!

But I tell this to all young men to get married for in your later years you will have many regrets for not having a family and that is more painful, for at that time it is too late! Than one trying to motivate you for the coming year! Like every thing in life we must work for it, with the help of the Lord that special someone is waiting for you, just like you are waiting for her! I think you would make a wonderful father!

Rest

[Wrigley]

I addressed that rest. You may have overlooked my response.

[restornu]

I guess it was an over sight of you wrigley, I did apologized to you!

***

To Wrigley | 12/16/2002 11:38 PM MST sent

If I was unkind to you I apologized!

But I tell this to all young men to get married for in your later years you will have many regrets for not having a family and that is more painful, for at that time it is too late! Than one trying to motivate you for the coming year! Like every thing in life we must work for it, with the help of the Lord that special someone is waiting for you, just like you are waiting for her! I think you would make a wonderful father!

Rest

168 posted on 12/17/2002 3:03 PM MST by restornu

"OH YOU MEAN THIS ONE"-

___________________________________________________________________

From Wrigley | 12/17/2002 5:53 AM MST read

See my response on the thread.

______________________________________________________________________

TO: restornu; drstevej; computerjunkie

Rest, your comment was out of the blue and had nothing to do with the context of the discussion. I believe you said it out of anger and frustration. I believe that you needed to lash out at me since you think I am fanning the flames of other posters against you.

And, I also believe that you know you shouldn't have brought that up in this discussion. But because of these discussions, you are constantly in defend mode, so even when you know you did the wrong thing, you can't bring yourself up to admit it. You post a response privately, and publically rationalizing what you wrote. Trying to explain it. Like Trent Lott, that response only hurts you.

What would have been more appropriate would have you saying that "I was wrong when I posted my response to Wrigley. I shouldn't have let my frustration get in the way of a response. I am sorry for posting it."

rest, you know me. I have done the same on a couple of occasions with posts to you. And to other people on the forum. Can you do the same?

107 posted on 12/17/2002 5:32 AM MST by Wrigley

[Wrigley]

Got it right. What't the issue in your mind?

[restornu]

Of course it would not have nothing to do with the fact that my husband pasted away in Dec. last year and I was remembering my life with him and having no children for we married late.

No! ~ it has to be out of anger and frustration. (not life as I experience) You go on to say: I believe that you needed to lash out at me since you think I am fanning the flames of other posters against you!

[Wrigley]

You may have been thinking about that, and since you were frustrated and angry, you lashed out.

[drstevej]

post #86 (restornu to wrigley): ***You should be preparing yourself to find a wife and have a family! Here it is another Christmas and no little pedder padders, or packages under the Tress, another year has pass void of family memories!***

post #172 (restornu to wrigley): ***Of course it would not have nothing to do with the fact that my husband pasted away in Dec. last year and I was remembering my life with him and having no children for we married late.***

drstevej: Your first post is nagging at best. He did not ask for your advice in his personal life.

I still say the remarks were very unkind, and you should be more sensitive having known the difficulty of lonliness at the holidays. If he is trusting the Lord to direct when and if he marries, who are you to tell him to get with it!

[restornu]

Sorry Steven I saw it as a wake up call! It was never met to be nagging only have this in one mind, If you don't think about it, years will go by and than it is too late!

You thought I was angry or frustrated, That is not true! I was feeling melancholy! And if I could encourage another not to have this experience!

Wrigley, your mind is made up you want to think the worst of what I said, so be it!

[drstevej]

Just say, "Wrigley I am sorry, I should have not made the statement."

Is that so hard for you?

[Wrigley]

I'm not sure if I'm even annoyed at the comment anymore. It was a unneeded and rediculous comment. It was nagging, and if it had anything to do with the thread, it would have been much less of an issue. But that wasn't the case.

What I am amazed at is how you, rest, can't seem to see why it was out of line. You have made a few attempts to rationalize why you made it. You did make an apology, in private, and then proceeded after that, to rationalize it away. Is it so hard just to say I shouldn't have made the comment and move on. I would have no problem with that.

I can remember making a comment that was totally ignorant about your dyslexia. As soon as I realized how totally uncalled for it was, I apologized and offered no rationalization. That would have weakened the apology. I remember you graciously accepted and we moved on.

I am willing to let this whole thing drop. But I hope you see why I have pushed this further than it probably should have been pushed.

[restornu]

I was not thinking about it in a personal judgement way, I was feeling it in lost way! So if from that point of view I have violated you personaly I am truely sorry!

[restornu]

PS I won't hold you to your out of the blue, unrelated baseball remarks, of the Clubs and Astro:)

[drstevej]

Being a Cubbie fan (wrigley) or Astro fan (drstevej) means constantly having to apologize! Requires a lot of humility to pull for either team. :<)

btw, thanks for the previous post to wrigley.