NOM

moksha wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 20, 2022 10:10 am

The Catholic Church...

I remember a defense that was used for one priest. He was only officially a priest when he is acting as one. When asked how you can tell if a priest is on or off the clock the defense team said that one way to tell he's off the clock is if he's sexually molesting a child. I suppose that could be another Catholic defense tactic the church could adopt.

There's an excellent interview with Rezendez on Radio West (and short, in case you're not up to a Dehlin marathon):
https://radiowest.kuer.org/show/radiowe ... lds-church

He does a very good job of explaining the procedure:

1) Anything confessed to or discussed with a bishop is protected by clergy-penitent privilege.
2) Get the bishop to call Kirton McConkie asap so they are covered by attorney-client privilege. Protected in both directions.
3) Shred reports of such calls at the end of every day to wash the church's hands of any involvement.
4) When a case does reach the public, light have church spokesmen declare that it's a unique incident and the church has no knowledge of any other such cases.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 21, 2022 8:37 am

3) Shred reports of such calls at the end of every day to wash the church's hands of any involvement.

I imagine Elder Oaks has a key fob on his key ring (perhaps built into his consecrated oil vial) and everyday when he leaves the office he stops, turns towards the Kirton McKonkie building and pushed the key fob to start the shredders. Then turns and pushes the key fab again to start his car and drive home.

Didn't report, didn't help, didn't do anything...
I have an ex-jw fb friend, they just posted:

The Pharisees never did anything wrong but they didn’t do anything for the right reasons that’s why they failed so miserably when it was time to stand up and defend a righteous man. The sins of omission can take people out of the running for the prize of the upward call. Pharasees never circumcised their own hearts . Lev 19:17,18. Deut 19:16

Anyways, big debate, people saying "you're not in the running ---name---", etc, just really bristled up at the idea.

My reply:
The sins of omission. Luke 10, a priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man (bruised and beaten), he passed by on the other side. ... The bystander effect, no mandated reporting, no helping victim, just avoid, ignore, walk on the other side of the road. I agree, the privileged "perfect" never drank, never smoked, never did anything - ... "never did anything", walked to the other side of the road, just avoid everyone less privileged, less lucky...

Haha, we'll see who that offends.

This new statement once again shows in and of itself that the church cares more about it's image than the children who were victimized. The irony is that because they were more concerned about their image and liability they actually screwed themselves over and have an undeniable reputation for caring more about their image and liability than children who are abused. Where your treasure is there shall your heart be also. All the resources they poured into protecting themselves backfired. If they had put actual resources into at least helping and supporting victims not only would it have been morally right but it actually would have also protected their precious image.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 21, 2022 8:37 am

... Kirton McConkie ...

Where was Kirton McConkie when the American Tobacco Institute needed help to convince people that cigarettes were harmless?

It takes a ballsy law firm to push cancer-causing cigarettes and permit the continual sexual abuse of children through non-reporting. Representing clients like the American Tobacco Institute and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (formerly known as the Mormons before current camouflage tactics) is not an easy job, even if both pay exceedingly well.

This lady did not pull her punches in this 57-second call:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNH4fis6qu4

moksha wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:52 am

This lady did not pull her punches in this 57-second call:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNH4fis6qu4

That's it in a nutshell. Good for her.

moksha wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 24, 2022 9:43 am

Representing clients like the American Tobacco Institute...

Really? I didn't know that. I'm always surprised when I'm surprised at such revelations. I thought they had beaten that emotion out of me. Can you imagine how quickly things would go to DefCon 1 if you walked into the COB smoking a cigarette and refused to put it out? Or the temple? "But wait, the church legally defended my right to do this!"

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 24, 2022 2:41 pm

moksha wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 24, 2022 9:43 am

Representing clients like the American Tobacco Institute...

Really? I didn't know that. I'm always surprised when I'm surprised at such revelations. I thought they had beaten that emotion out of me. Can you imagine how quickly things would go to DefCon 1 if you walked into the COB smoking a cigarette and refused to put it out? Or the temple? "But wait, the church legally defended my right to do this!"

I think you are taking Moska out of context. The Penguin is using it as an example of a law firm representing a despicable client, not saying they did. I cannot find anything that says that KM was involved in representing tobacco companies back in the day.

If anything, they were involved in lawsuits against E-cig maker Juul.
https://www.standard.net/news/2021/jul/ ... inst-juul/

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:31 am

I think you are taking Moska out of context. The Penguin is using it as an example of a law firm representing a despicable client, not saying they did. I cannot find anything that says that KM was involved in representing tobacco companies back in the day.

If anything, they were involved in lawsuits against E-cig maker Juul.
https://www.standard.net/news/2021/jul/ ... inst-juul/

Thanks for clarifying for me. I was saying the lawyers in both cases had the odious task of advocating something not beneficial to the general welfare. In the case of the Church, it is like a necrophiliac deer seen devouring a corpse while caught in the headlight. It is hard to unsee its true nature and let it go back to just being a church.

moksha wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 25, 2022 12:35 pm

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:31 am

I think you are taking Moska out of context. The Penguin is using it as an example of a law firm representing a despicable client, not saying they did. I cannot find anything that says that KM was involved in representing tobacco companies back in the day.

If anything, they were involved in lawsuits against E-cig maker Juul.
https://www.standard.net/news/2021/jul/ ... inst-juul/

Thanks for clarifying for me. I was saying the lawyers in both cases had the odious task of advocating something not beneficial to the general welfare. In the case of the Church, it is like a necrophiliac deer seen devouring a corpse while caught in the headlight. It is hard to unsee its true nature and let it go back to just being a church.

Sorry about that. I was not so much taking Moksha out of context as displaying my own ignorance and naivete. No nefarious twisting of meanings intended. When I reread the statement it still sounds like Moksha is saying that Kir-Conk in fact defends both child molesters AND tobacco advocates. Thanks for setting me straight.

More BYU behavior:

The NAACP states, “It is extremely disheartening to hear about what occurred at the Duke vs BYU Volleyball game Friday evening targeted at the only Black player on Duke's team.”

The organization says that it is not the first time that racist comments have been targeted towards Black players, and that such behavior should not be tolerated.

They state that Utah has a reputation for this behavior, and that “athletes do not want to play here because of racist comments and attitudes directed towards them.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb ... 5ea4df8b97

Following this incident, Kirton McConkie has urged coaches and fans to deny that such a game ever took place and to inform the media that BYU does not play sports.

I saw this over on reddit. The church is trying to block the testimony of the ward clerk. The judge has ruled that the clerk is not a clergy member, thus clergy-penitent privilege does not apply. The church is appealing. https://www.myheraldreview.com/news/bis ... 3fbb9.html

The thing that is new to me is that there is a criminal investigation on all of this. I think the bishops need to be held responsible. I also think the Q15 who created this mess should be prosecuted. There are probably no grounds for doing that, but the Q15 are the ones who ultimately allowed these two girls and all the others to be abused for as long as they have been. Maybe the church itself will be indicted. I don't know if anyone would be held responsible in that case but it might cut seriously into the Ensign Peak funds.

blazerb wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:52 pm

The thing that is new to me is that there is a criminal investigation on all of this. I think the bishops need to be held responsible. I also think the Q15 who created this mess should be prosecuted. There are probably no grounds for doing that, but the Q15 are the ones who ultimately allowed these two girls and all the others to be abused for as long as they have been. Maybe the church itself will be indicted. I don't know if anyone would be held responsible in that case but it might cut seriously into the Ensign Peak funds.

I agree a bishop should be held responsible to an extent.

I’m not defending the Q15 here but I don’t see how they ultimately allowed these two girls and everyone else to be abused. It seems the lawyers have created a barrier to protect the Q15 so they can claim they were not in the know. The church won’t be indicted. They’ll just continue to settle these cases out of court with a check and a non-disclosure agreement. Abuse will continue amongst members of the church as has happened in the Catholic Church. The membership will continue to look the other way and support the church. Prophet worship is one hell of a drug.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:03 pm

I agree a bishop should be held responsible to an extent.

I’m not defending the Q15 here but I don’t see how they ultimately allowed these two girls and everyone else to be abused. It seems the lawyers have created a barrier to protect the Q15 so they can claim they were not in the know. The church won’t be indicted. They’ll just continue to settle these cases out of court with a check and a non-disclosure agreement. Abuse will continue amongst members of the church as has happened in the Catholic Church. The membership will continue to look the other way and support the church. Prophet worship is one hell of a drug.

The lawyers are not the bosses, though. They work for the corporation. That corporation is run by a single man who gets advice from 14 other men. They are the ones who hire the lawyers, agree to the policies, and continue to put people in vulnerable situations. I just hope for an outcome that changes a horrible system. I accept that such a hope is in vain.

You're absolutely right that no matter what happens the membership will continue to look the other way and wire their tithing to SLC. Prophet worship is indeed an excellent drug.

ETA: The biggest reason that I hold the Q15 responsible is that this situation would never happen again if RMN called KM and said that the policy of the church is that bishops and stake presidents will report all crimes they learn about unless the law explicitly forbids it.

blazerb wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:52 pm

I saw this over on reddit. The church is trying to block the testimony of the ward clerk. The judge has ruled that the clerk is not a clergy member, thus clergy-penitent privilege does not apply. The church is appealing. https://www.myheraldreview.com/news/bis ... 3fbb9.html

It's no longer about clergy-penitent privilege, it's about hiding what the church knew and when they knew it.

nibbler wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:01 pm

blazerb wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:52 pm

I saw this over on reddit. The church is trying to block the testimony of the ward clerk. The judge has ruled that the clerk is not a clergy member, thus clergy-penitent privilege does not apply. The church is appealing. https://www.myheraldreview.com/news/bis ... 3fbb9.html

It's no longer about clergy-penitent privilege, it's about hiding what the church knew and when they knew it.

It stopped being about clergy penitent privilege as soon as they had the mother in there and she admitted there was abuse of the children. At that point, the bishop had a report of abuse by some one other than the penitent, and he was required by law to report. Period, end of discussion. But after that they excommunicated him and the abuse continued for several more years. So, yes, it is all about how much the bishops knew and when. But there is no question that when they held a discussion with the mother of those children, trying to get her to report, that the bishop was required by law to report.