The Mormon Child Abusers Playbook

[Just This Guy]

19yo RM has been arrested and charged with attempting to extort sexual favors from teenage girls. This included atemted extortion by threatening to "expose" girls online and to send rapists to their house.

https://truecrimedaily.com/2019/07/02/u ... eir-homes/

From Sam Young's page:

Further details from an anonymous source: The police investigation began in August 2018. Gabe Gilbert had been sent home from his mission by April 2019 and his parents refused to disclose to police where he was. Yet he felt safe to resurface in his LDS ward. Gabe Gilbert was then given a calling of teaching Sunday school to the 12 to 13 year olds, a class which included young girls. Our tipster was in utter shock to realize that though the Church was aware of his crime, nothing was done to protect the youth... Whether Gilbert's local bishop was fully aware is unknown, but the Church, his parents and the man himself were clearly in the know. Certainly, any one of them could have tipped the bishop off that Gabe Gilbert was not worthy for ANY calling. In fact, the very last place Gilbert should have been put was in that classroom.

Was the intent that there should be no church discipline issued at all? Evidence points to it. Was it more important that a young man's life not be ruined than that the lives of young women not be endangered or ruined? Evidence points to it.

Gilbert has since been released as Sunday School teacher, but only after the news broke in the press on July 2nd. He hasn't returned to church since then.

I take anonymous source with a grain of salt, but if this is true is is sickeningly familiar to what happened in my neck of the woods.

[Just This Guy]

Oh, it is Snapchat that turns call for an investigation into this kid which lead to his arrest. Parents and church knew he was wanted and hid him anyway, even putting him in position to go after more girls.

[blazerb]

Oh, it is Snapchat that turns call for an investigation into this kid which lead to his arrest. Parents and church knew he was wanted and hid him anyway, even putting him in position to go after more girls.

What really pisses me off is that there are young men who are told they can't pass or bless the sacrament because they masturbated. The whole ward knows that they aren't participating. Everyone knows there is some "moral" issue. They get their lives turned upside down. Meanwhile, someone who is a real sexual predator gets protected because the leaders are afraid of ruining his life. This guy needed to be turned in for the sake of the potential victims. It's seems like there is no problem shaming someone for masturbation or consensual sexual activities. However, if someone commits sexual assault, the whole ecclesiastical machinery swings into gear to protect the perpetrator. This is really messed up.

[alas]

Oh, it is Snapchat that turns call for an investigation into this kid which lead to his arrest. Parents and church knew he was wanted and hid him anyway, even putting him in position to go after more girls.

What really pisses me off is that there are young men who are told they can't pass or bless the sacrament because they masturbated. The whole ward knows that they aren't participating. Everyone knows there is some "moral" issue. They get their lives turned upside down. Meanwhile, someone who is a real sexual predator gets protected because the leaders are afraid of ruining his life. This guy needed to be turned in for the sake of the potential victims. It's seems like there is no problem shaming someone for masturbation or consensual sexual activities. However, if someone commits sexual assault, the whole ecclesiastical machinery swings into gear to protect the perpetrator. This is really messed up.

Yes, this.

It is like they don’t know any difference between victimless “sins” and sins that really really harm a victim. I have seen this over and over and over. I used to work as a rape crisis counselor, and heard SO many stories where some guy date draped a girl, and he got a minor slap on the wrist while she got publicly shamed and told how bad she was for (a) unchastity, (b)“lack of forgiveness” for trying to 1. Claim it was rape and not consensual. 2. Trying to “ruin his life” by trying to prosecute, actually just reporting to police was a much bigger crime than the rape itself. 3. Having any kind of emotional damage. 4. Not 100% trusting the bishop because she felt she honestly could not trust any male after a friend raped her. 5. Feeling angry or betrayed. They often felt raped all over again by the church.

It was so obvious that a rapist priesthood holder was worth more to the church than any female.

I also worked in a battered women’s shelter. It was the same crap with the battered women. 1. Deny it was as bad as the woman claimed. Fact, the women most often make it sound like much less than it really is, saying something like he hit me in the ribs, and not mentioning she was pregnant and he broke three ribs. 2. Say it was her fault for not obeying, giving sex, whatever. 3. Treat it like it is equally her doing, even when she gives him everything she can to keep him happy. 4. Take the abusers side if she leaves him. She is breaking the marriage covenant, not the husband who beats her. 5 advise against divorce. 6. Advise against involving police. 7. Advise against staying at a battered women’s shelter. I. Advise against professional counseling.

Once again, a violent priesthood holder is SO much more valuable to the church than any female.

Man breaks his wife’s ribs, collar bone, wrist over a period of 10 years. Finally, the wife decides to leave him when he breaks the 12 year old son’s arm. Bishop totally sides with the man, with “how could you abandon him when he is dealing with so much work stress?” No concept that she just was not willing to allow what was done to her over and over to start to happen to her children.

Young man in the ward date rapes three different girls and he still goes on a mission. It was enough to make me ashamed of being Mormon.

[Not Buying It]

Personally, I think minimizing the impact of sexual assault and harassment of women is inevitable in a patriarchal organization like the Church. Without a female perspective in leadership, it is often hard for the males in charge to understand the full impact these things have on women. It is almost impossible for most male leaders to empathize with women in cases of assault and abuse, and very easy for them to invoke in group/outgroup distinctions and protect the in group, other males. Sure, there are exceptions, but the whole patriarchal organization of the Church sets it up to protect men and minimize women's concerns. Given the sexually repressed nature of the Church, it is entirely possible that some leaders secretly empathize with sexual predators, themselves having sexual desires that maybe aren't addressed in a healthy way - and the recent arrest of Bishop Steven Murdock and some of the information that has come to light since would indicate that some leaders have been guilty of sexually predatory behavior themselves, and may not feel much of a need to take it seriously. Add to that a preoccupation with maintaining the upright image of the organization and a plethora of untrained leaders who are in over their heads in cases like that, and it's a recipe for a train wrecking into a dumpster fire.

[Mackman]

I work in a prison and I can tell you this little piece of shit needs to be put away NOT PROTECTED !!!!@
Makes me sick to think the Church would protect him . Almost as bad as the Catholic church turning a blind eye to protecting Nazi leaders at the end of WW II.

[Linked]

What really pisses me off is that there are young men who are told they can't pass or bless the sacrament because they masturbated. The whole ward knows that they aren't participating. Everyone knows there is some "moral" issue. They get their lives turned upside down. Meanwhile, someone who is a real sexual predator gets protected because the leaders are afraid of ruining his life. This guy needed to be turned in for the sake of the potential victims. It's seems like there is no problem shaming someone for masturbation or consensual sexual activities. However, if someone commits sexual assault, the whole ecclesiastical machinery swings into gear to protect the perpetrator. This is really messed up.

I wonder if it's partly a matter of perceived contriteness of the sinner. Someone regularly participating in consensual sexual activities is clearly not on board with following the authority of the church; they are a rebel and need to be broken. But if the sexual predator weeps about how they can't control them self and need help then they have shown that they are just weak, and need support.

When I was a teenager I found porn on a budding internet, and was not savvy enough to prevent or delete the evidence. My parents found it and confronted me and I cried and begged for help and received no punishment. (It was quite pitiful, I'm not proud of that moment) Another time as a teenager I cashed a check I had earned and spent $10 to go to a haunted house with friends and was grounded for a month for not giving the money to my mom so she could put it in my savings and give me my 10% back for fun.

It's not right, and the church needs to figure out their responsibility to potential victims of sexual abuse, but I think that it's a plausible scenario.

I wonder if that also plays into the mistreatment of victims of sexual assault. The victim isn't contrite because they were the victim, and have no reason to be contrite. But dingle berry bishop remembers the time a girl wasn't super on board but he pushed her to make-out anyway, and he's obviously not a sexual predator, and that's probably what happened here, so the victim needs to "recognize their part" in the sin, otherwise maybe bishop dingle berry actually is a sexual predator.

Or maybe there are cases where the victim is confused and partially blames them self and meets with the bishop hoping for wise counsel, and the bishop just hears a confession. And not even a clear confession. The victim must need some discipline to understand how serious their sin is.

ETA - Lots of sarcasm in the last two paragraphs. Linked does not actually think victims need discipline for their "sin" of being assaulted.

[alas]

What really pisses me off is that there are young men who are told they can't pass or bless the sacrament because they masturbated. The whole ward knows that they aren't participating. Everyone knows there is some "moral" issue. They get their lives turned upside down. Meanwhile, someone who is a real sexual predator gets protected because the leaders are afraid of ruining his life. This guy needed to be turned in for the sake of the potential victims. It's seems like there is no problem shaming someone for masturbation or consensual sexual activities. However, if someone commits sexual assault, the whole ecclesiastical machinery swings into gear to protect the perpetrator. This is really messed up.

I wonder if it's partly a matter of perceived contriteness of the sinner. Someone regularly participating in consensual sexual activities is clearly not on board with following the authority of the church; they are a rebel and need to be broken. But if the sexual predator weeps about how they can't control them self and need help then they have shown that they are just weak, and need support.

When I was a teenager I found porn on a budding internet, and was not savvy enough to prevent or delete the evidence. My parents found it and confronted me and I cried and begged for help and received no punishment. (It was quite pitiful, I'm not proud of that moment) Another time as a teenager I cashed a check I had earned and spent $10 to go to a haunted house with friends and was grounded for a month for not giving the money to my mom so she could put it in my savings and give me my 10% back for fun.

It's not right, and the church needs to figure out their responsibility to potential victims of sexual abuse, but I think that it's a plausible scenario.

I wonder if that also plays into the mistreatment of victims of sexual assault. The victim isn't contrite because they were the victim, and have no reason to be contrite. But dingle berry bishop remembers the time a girl wasn't super on board but he pushed her to make-out anyway, and he's obviously not a sexual predator, and that's probably what happened here, so the victim needs to "recognize their part" in the sin, otherwise maybe bishop dingle berry actually is a sexual predator.

Or maybe there are cases where the victim is confused and partially blames them self and meets with the bishop hoping for wise counsel, and the bishop just hears a confession. And not even a clear confession. The victim must need some discipline to understand how serious their sin is.

ETA - Lots of sarcasm in the last two paragraphs. Linked does not actually think victims need discipline for their "sin" of being assaulted.

Yes to all of this. I know you are being sarcastic, but the bishops really DO treat the victims of date rape as if they are unrepentant sinners. The girls goes in, because she is confused because she thinks she did everything right and her date still coerced her into sex and she has been taught all the myths about what the victim was wearing or what she was doing that “caused” the guy to lose control. So, the facts that her clothing got ripped, she got a fat lip and bruises, is all lost of the bishop because all he hears is “what did I do wrong?” So he thinks it is job as judge in Israel to bring her to see what she did wrong and get her contrite instead of scared and confused and angry. So, he tells her about her big boobs and tight clothing.

Then ten years later when her marriage is falling apart because sex always triggers her PTSD, she ends up in marriage counseling and the counselor tells her “that was rape” because consensual sex does not cause PTSD and nightmares ten years later. So, she finally lands in my office for counseling for rape, only now it is compounded by the bishop’s bungling and several years of marital sex feeling like rape and compound PTSD.

Worse, one client felt (was told) she needed to marry her rapist because she got pregnant and rapist continued to beat and rape her for the whole marriage. Yeah, Mormon bishops give such good inspired advice. Why did my Catholic, Baptist, etc clients never have that kind of experience with clergy. Because their clergy get some training, yet Morons, ( oops spelled that wrong) are proud of their lay, stupid, sexist, stupid, arrogant, stupid, untrained, stupid, volunteer, stupid clergy.

But I don’t have any issues left from my career as a social worker, nope, no bad feeling. My job had nothing to do with my loss of trust in Moron leaders.

[blazerb]

I wonder if it's partly a matter of perceived contriteness of the sinner. Someone regularly participating in consensual sexual activities is clearly not on board with following the authority of the church; they are a rebel and need to be broken. But if the sexual predator weeps about how they can't control them self and need help then they have shown that they are just weak, and need support.

When I was a teenager I found porn on a budding internet, and was not savvy enough to prevent or delete the evidence. My parents found it and confronted me and I cried and begged for help and received no punishment. (It was quite pitiful, I'm not proud of that moment) Another time as a teenager I cashed a check I had earned and spent $10 to go to a haunted house with friends and was grounded for a month for not giving the money to my mom so she could put it in my savings and give me my 10% back for fun.

It's not right, and the church needs to figure out their responsibility to potential victims of sexual abuse, but I think that it's a plausible scenario.

I wonder if that also plays into the mistreatment of victims of sexual assault. The victim isn't contrite because they were the victim, and have no reason to be contrite. But dingle berry bishop remembers the time a girl wasn't super on board but he pushed her to make-out anyway, and he's obviously not a sexual predator, and that's probably what happened here, so the victim needs to "recognize their part" in the sin, otherwise maybe bishop dingle berry actually is a sexual predator.

Or maybe there are cases where the victim is confused and partially blames them self and meets with the bishop hoping for wise counsel, and the bishop just hears a confession. And not even a clear confession. The victim must need some discipline to understand how serious their sin is.

ETA - Lots of sarcasm in the last two paragraphs. Linked does not actually think victims need discipline for their "sin" of being assaulted.

Yes to all of this. I know you are being sarcastic, but the bishops really DO treat the victims of date rape as if they are unrepentant sinners. The girls goes in, because she is confused because she thinks she did everything right and her date still coerced her into sex and she has been taught all the myths about what the victim was wearing or what she was doing that “caused” the guy to lose control. So, the facts that her clothing got ripped, she got a fat lip and bruises, is all lost of the bishop because all he hears is “what did I do wrong?” So he thinks it is job as judge in Israel to bring her to see what she did wrong and get her contrite instead of scared and confused and angry. So, he tells her about her big boobs and tight clothing.

Then ten years later when her marriage is falling apart because sex always triggers her PTSD, she ends up in marriage counseling and the counselor tells her “that was rape” because consensual sex does not cause PTSD and nightmares ten years later. So, she finally lands in my office for counseling for rape, only now it is compounded by the bishop’s bungling and several years of marital sex feeling like rape and compound PTSD.

Worse, one client felt (was told) she needed to marry her rapist because she got pregnant and rapist continued to beat and rape her for the whole marriage. Yeah, Mormon bishops give such good inspired advice. Why did my Catholic, Baptist, etc clients never have that kind of experience with clergy. Because their clergy get some training, yet Morons, ( oops spelled that wrong) are proud of their lay, stupid, sexist, stupid, arrogant, stupid, untrained, stupid, volunteer, stupid clergy.

But I don’t have any issues left from my career as a social worker, nope, no bad feeling. My job had nothing to do with my loss of trust in Moron leaders.

So we have created a system where victims of assault and abuse get treated as the worst sinners. Those who commit assault get the greatest protection. It is horrific.

[Random]

"Nonconsensual immorality"

barf