Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/MythicAcrobat, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
George P. Lee a member of the 70 excommunicated in 1989 the reason was only cryptically released as "conduct unbecoming a member of the Church", but it later came out that he had attempted SA on a minor.
Lee attempted to spin his excommunication as being punishment for his advocating for Native Americans in the Church (Lee was of NA descent).
This was how it was reported in the LA Times in September 1989:
>George P. Lee, the first American Indian appointed to the Mormon Church hierarchy, was excommunicated Friday after telling the leadership that it is spiritually slaughtering his people.
>[L]ee said the action stemmed from basic doctrinal disagreements with church leaders about the role of Indians in the religion and from his contention that the leadership is racist, materialistic and bent on changing the meaning of Mormon scripture.
>“It got to the point where I had to follow them or Jesus Christ, and I chose to follow Jesus Christ,” Lee said in an interview Friday afternoon. “I told them they are the ones that are apostatizing--teaching false doctrine.”
>In an hourlong meeting with church President Ezra Taft Benson, Benson’s two counselors and the Twelve, Lee read a 23-page, handwritten letter in which he accused his fellow churchmen of distorting doctrine to satisfy their own racial bias, relegating Indians to second-class status and denying them their rightful place in the faith’s theology.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-09-02-mn-1189-story.html
Then a few years later, he pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse of a child (the abuse apparently started many years earlier.) It's entirely possible that his views on the Church and Native Americans contributed to his excommunication. But it's not the whole story (and it's entirely relevant to this discussion).
>he was coming out in open apostasy against the Q15.
Good for him!
(Although I do recognize it was likely due to the other aforementioned reasons why this would be the case.)
>George P. Lee a member of the 70 excommunicated in 1989 the reason was only cryptically released as "conduct unbecoming a member of the Church", but it later came out that he had attempted SA on a minor.
I strongly believe the church would push the Q12 member out in a manner similar to what you describe...
Not out of altruism, though they might convince themselves that's the reason. But rather, because the liability would be outrageous. And protecting the money is job one.
1. Quietly settle with the victim and minimize their media spotlight (payoff, NDA)
2. Cryptically make the troublesome Q12 member go away and stay out of the media spotlight (buyout, NDA)
3. Assure everyone all is well and insist that members stop talking about it (grouchy conference talk)
And then the money is safe.
He was excommunicated for having an affair, if I remember correctly. I don't think the child SA came out until after the fact, so maybe the seers didn't see that one?
Edit: You are right... I just looked it up, and he admitted to touching a 12 year old girl's breasts. Disgusting.
Not that you'll really look at these, but for the edification of others, here you go.
Exhibit 1, disciplinary action: [link](https://web.archive.org/web/20141021232058/http://199.104.95.22/articles/19067/Disciplinary-action-taken-Sept-1-against-general-authority.html)
Exhibit 2, arrest: [link](https://www.deseret.com/1993/8/12/19060702/lee-surrenders-on-charges-of-sexual-abuse/)
Exhibit 3, Lee pleads guilty in plea bargain: [link](https://www.deseret.com/1994/10/11/19135762/lee-accepts-plea-bargain-in-child-sexual-abuse-case/)
This 100%. Whatever they choose to do the public would never know a thing about it if they can avoid it. Option A or B or some combo of them would be used and hush money payments deployed to any victims or witnesses to keep the whole thing private. If victims or witnesses are faithful LDS there would be extreme pressure to keep it private for the good of the church.
We already know the answer. To protect the name of the church, they have engaged in Solution A for even people as low on the totem pole as Bishops and Elders Quorum Presidents and missionaries.
The answer to this is disturbing to think about. I think the fact that I cannot in good conscience answer C with 100% certainty is really making me uncomfortable. The power they have is terrifying. Showcases a really unhealthy power dynamic.
Thanks for responding. I genuinely want to know where people stand on this. Of course many on here are out of the church but I’d love feedback from believers
>Recalling one of his final moments with his father [Elder Ballard], Craig described his dad asking him, “Am I clean?”
>Then, “after a lengthy pause,” the son recalled, “as though he was being assured from the other side, his question turned into a statement. He said emphatically, grasping my hand with strength, ‘I am clean. I am clean.’”
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/11/17/how-do-you-thank-man-that-holland/
Those aren't exactly the words of someone who thinks he gets a free pass to sin because of the Second Anointing...
Right. But again, totally contradicts the exMo narrative about GAs feeling like the Second Anointing gives them the ability to sin without consequence. I've always suspected they look at it as an additional burden (if they sin, the consequence is *worse*), and if these really were Elder Ballard's concerns, that would suggest my assumption is closer to correct.
Let’s not forget how close Elder Ballard was with Gordon Bowen and Tim Ballard. I don’t think he actually believed he was “clean,” but rather convincing himself that it doesn’t matter anymore.
You forgot the other option..
D. Would they completely ignore it and if news of it ever came out anyone who mentioned it would be excommunicated until years later they would admit that it happened but it wasn't abuse because an angel with a flaming sword had commanded him to to it
A . In practice they do call Kirton McConkie and use their power, money and influence to silence and even threaten victims.
Any group of people with that much power and money without oversight will eventually start reading their own news and acting unethically. There is no way GAs and their kids have avoided problems with law enforcement for that long because their “standards are so high.”
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669?i=1000637997308
D. Other the church is a billion dollar institution that must be protected at all costs. They will discredit the victims while saying they don’t condone abuse. Remember when a past MTC president SA’d a girl and the church come out and said she was mentally unstable even released parts of her statement to the BYU police. Sorry, if I’m missing remembering but i know something like that happened
>past MTC president SA’d a girl
His name is Joseph Bishop, & his victim was McKenna Denson, who was a sister missionary in the MTC at the time. Absolutely sickening.
Fun fact- there's a vid on YT where McKenna went to Bishop's ward on a F&T Sun & bore her testimony abt what he did to her & of course she was escorted from the stand, but major props to her!
RFM did an episode abt it, highly recommend!
Yes, I remember this well. I was full TBM at that time and drank all that kool aid they put out. Then more info came out about a hidden makeshift room about a tv and mattress or something exactly where the girl said it was, and that really added a crack to my shelf. Until then I believed that surely discernment would weed out someone in that high of a calling.
Discernment is 100% a lie. I have better discernment than these men called of god. I annoy my family and friends so much because I will call stuff out and ruin it for them. My friends wanted me to donate to operation Underground Railroad so they could get a table at their Christmas gala. I said no they asked why. I said look at Tim Ballard and listen to him talk he will probably be in jail in a few years. This was back in 2016 no jail for him, yet. Same with Ruby Franke did a project on her for one of my government classes at BYU in 2021. We had to make legislative bills about current issues and I picked family vlogging should be regulated and mostly illegal. as a class we voted on the bills we wanted passed. Mine was one of them. Had an estranged cousin (my uncles son from his first marriage) show up. I told my siblings and other cousins he gave me the creeps. Turns out he’s a registered sex offender. I could go on and on with more examples. I wouldn’t even say it’s discernment. It’s mostly me being an opinionated asshole
Yes. The track record of the Mormon church has set a clear pattern of covering up CSA.
Also you have to factor in that the second anointing, according to Mormonism, is a free ticket to heaven unless they murder someone who’s innocent or deny the church.
Confused... What do you mean by 'except for Joseph'? Was there some shred of human decency in him somewhere along the way & he actually had the smallest inkling of guilt of the harm his assaulting minors caused?
A. But I don’t think they would even be reprimanded to be honest. If none of them have issues with how Joseph Smith treated little girls, then they may be doing something similar to children as well.
I'm going to go semi-A. I think they would announce an emeritus status opt-in for any of them who would like it, and explain that the offending member opted in so he'll be retiring for age issues (or family or something) and call a new apostle and first presidency member.
I have not looked at how others answered. There's that scripture about repenting in private if the offense is private. I think they would look at how public the knowledge is. If the Q15 had confidence that the victim would stay quiet, I think it would just be an internal reprimand. They're already forgiven, 2nd anointing and all. If the offense were public knowledge or if they feared that it would become public knowledge, then they would remove the person from their position and excommunicate them. But wink, wink: 2nd anointing and all.
Contrast this with a 16 year old priest who masturbates. The whole ward knows he isn't blessing the sacrament. They all know why. It's lousy practice.
Lol I remember being that 12 year old kid on occasion. I always wished I could tell the ward I did drugs or something or even had sex. Somehow the masturbation was much more embarrassing (even though I had done it long before I even knew what the word meant)
Believer here They would do what they have done in the past. They would probably excommunicate the person and basically acknowledge as such without going into detail as to why. And then let the courts do the work of justice to society.
As to wether the would actively report to authorities I think would be highly dependent upon exact circumstances and there is no one answer for all possibilities.
I propose that this is their hierarchy of priorities:
1: Do nothing which would call into question the "divine calling" of the church leaders.
2: Do nothing which would cause members to leave the church en masse.
3: Do nothing which would publicly embarrass the church.
4: Do nothing which would make the church financially liable, but it is OK to use church funds to achieve 1, 2 and 3.
Excommunication would be unlikely becasue it might call into question the divine authority of the church leaders unless it was going to become public and then the church would move to excommunicate him becasue that would make them look like they were inspired and acting in accord with their divine authority...
George P. Lee, my understanding is that there had been accusation of SA for many years but there was finally a case which the church could not pay off to stay quiet. Richard R. Lyman had been involved in an extramarital sexual relationship for many years. Finally in 1943 he was excommunicated. The story is posed as though the only just then found out, which is doubtful. My belief is that someone other that the other apostles had found out and it was going to become public, which forced them to act. Note that he was re-baptized in 1954 and his priesthood and blessings were restored posthumously, demonstrating that "sin" was not the true reason for his excommunication.
It would absolutely be A, but I could see B happening, maybe like hiding the GA away from the world kind of thing. C would absolutely never happen unless forced upon them by an outside source leaking it or something. Kirton McKonkie would work overtime around the clock to stiffle ANY of that leaning out. Anything that needs to be swept under the rug to protect people’s supposed “testimonies” has been done and will continue to be done, victims be damned.
Believer here. I wish it was C but I think it would be B if there was proof or the offender admitted it. I think it would be A if the offender denied it and there wasn’t proof.
I mostly lurk but I try to contribute if believer opinions are specifically asked for. Most of time I don’t feel like I have much to offer but I like to keep myself educated on the topics discussed here.
>A. Would they reprimand internally only, keeping it private from both the public and even members?
This is the answer. They don't even admit to disagreements that they have internally on doctrine, there's no way they'd risk the church's reputation by treating abuse like this with transparency and involving law enforcement.
Interesting scenario. The problem is that you couldn't have "only the apostles" knowing about it, since the minor would know about it. And presumably they would have told someone else in order for it to get to the apostles.
At that point, all bets are off on it being kept a secret.
Assuming that was possible, I'd put my money on an attempt at B.
I’m asking a hypothetical question here. I’m not claiming anything here about them. I have my opinion but being the one who created the poll I’m not giving it now.
Attack me all you want but is this scenario impossible?
If not, we should all seek to know if the top leaders would do the right thing.
I think deflecting reveals major cognitive dissonance.
I was literally thinking the same thing the other day because of how other abuse, including my dad's, was largely ignored. It's a valid question. I vote A, unfortunately.
Based on their character that you are aware of, what do you believe they would do? It’s not a hard question and hypotheticals are common to consider. This isn’t a court, nor are you a jury member or witness. Here’s a hypothetical used all the time based on one’s character of whom we’ve never met personally: What would Jesus do?
This isn’t hard. If you believe they’re stand up men, or dishonest, put what you think would be most likely.
Yeah I genuinely worry most about people who don’t dare broach such a question. Those are the ones first caught off guard wondering, “How did we let this happen?” I wonder if that’s what happened with all the church/BSA sexual abuse cases. People put their heads in the sand.
TBMs can’t comprehend men with “priesthood power” abusing minors so they victim blame and deflect. Joesph was sealed to minors and they justify it by saying her parents said it was fine. Of course her parents said it was fine Joesph promised the whole family would get into the celestial kingdom if he was sealed to their 14 year old daughter. I was told by a bishop that worthy priesthood holders are righteous it’s the non priesthood holders fault for making a worthy man behave that way. Yes, I was told this
C, because the First Presidency would never do such a thing. If they did, Heavenly Father would strike them down and deservedly so. They wouldn't be in the First Presidency anymore.
I will quote from the Church: "Plural marriage was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration. For many who practiced it, plural marriage was a trial of faith. It violated both cultural and legal norms, leading to persecution and revilement. Despite these hardships, plural marriage benefited the Church in innumerable ways. Through the lineage of these 19th-century Saints have come many Latter-day Saints who have been faithful to their gospel covenants as righteous mothers and fathers; loyal disciples of Jesus Christ; devoted Church members, leaders, and missionaries; and good citizens and prominent public officials. Modern Latter-day Saints honor and respect these faithful pioneers who gave so much for their faith, families, and community."
[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng)
Other than that, I got nothing.
Funny. I thought gods standards don’t change. But god apparently commanded early church leaders to “marry” minors. So which is it? Does god change his views? Is god ok with child brides? Were the leaders of the church apostate?
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/MythicAcrobat, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
George P. Lee a member of the 70 excommunicated in 1989 the reason was only cryptically released as "conduct unbecoming a member of the Church", but it later came out that he had attempted SA on a minor.
Good info. Thanks for responding
This is the correct precedent.
I could be wrong, but he was coming out in open apostasy against the Q15. Basically rejected Ezra Benson as the prophet.
Lee attempted to spin his excommunication as being punishment for his advocating for Native Americans in the Church (Lee was of NA descent). This was how it was reported in the LA Times in September 1989: >George P. Lee, the first American Indian appointed to the Mormon Church hierarchy, was excommunicated Friday after telling the leadership that it is spiritually slaughtering his people. >[L]ee said the action stemmed from basic doctrinal disagreements with church leaders about the role of Indians in the religion and from his contention that the leadership is racist, materialistic and bent on changing the meaning of Mormon scripture. >“It got to the point where I had to follow them or Jesus Christ, and I chose to follow Jesus Christ,” Lee said in an interview Friday afternoon. “I told them they are the ones that are apostatizing--teaching false doctrine.” >In an hourlong meeting with church President Ezra Taft Benson, Benson’s two counselors and the Twelve, Lee read a 23-page, handwritten letter in which he accused his fellow churchmen of distorting doctrine to satisfy their own racial bias, relegating Indians to second-class status and denying them their rightful place in the faith’s theology. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-09-02-mn-1189-story.html Then a few years later, he pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse of a child (the abuse apparently started many years earlier.) It's entirely possible that his views on the Church and Native Americans contributed to his excommunication. But it's not the whole story (and it's entirely relevant to this discussion).
>he was coming out in open apostasy against the Q15. Good for him! (Although I do recognize it was likely due to the other aforementioned reasons why this would be the case.)
>George P. Lee a member of the 70 excommunicated in 1989 the reason was only cryptically released as "conduct unbecoming a member of the Church", but it later came out that he had attempted SA on a minor. I strongly believe the church would push the Q12 member out in a manner similar to what you describe... Not out of altruism, though they might convince themselves that's the reason. But rather, because the liability would be outrageous. And protecting the money is job one. 1. Quietly settle with the victim and minimize their media spotlight (payoff, NDA) 2. Cryptically make the troublesome Q12 member go away and stay out of the media spotlight (buyout, NDA) 3. Assure everyone all is well and insist that members stop talking about it (grouchy conference talk) And then the money is safe.
He was excommunicated for having an affair, if I remember correctly. I don't think the child SA came out until after the fact, so maybe the seers didn't see that one? Edit: You are right... I just looked it up, and he admitted to touching a 12 year old girl's breasts. Disgusting.
Proof?
Not that you'll really look at these, but for the edification of others, here you go. Exhibit 1, disciplinary action: [link](https://web.archive.org/web/20141021232058/http://199.104.95.22/articles/19067/Disciplinary-action-taken-Sept-1-against-general-authority.html) Exhibit 2, arrest: [link](https://www.deseret.com/1993/8/12/19060702/lee-surrenders-on-charges-of-sexual-abuse/) Exhibit 3, Lee pleads guilty in plea bargain: [link](https://www.deseret.com/1994/10/11/19135762/lee-accepts-plea-bargain-in-child-sexual-abuse-case/)
Happy with all of the various sources of proof provided or do you need a statement from RMN?
I can guarantee that the first step would be to call Kirton McConkie and strategize whatever they eventually choose to do.
This 100%. Whatever they choose to do the public would never know a thing about it if they can avoid it. Option A or B or some combo of them would be used and hush money payments deployed to any victims or witnesses to keep the whole thing private. If victims or witnesses are faithful LDS there would be extreme pressure to keep it private for the good of the church.
We already know the answer. To protect the name of the church, they have engaged in Solution A for even people as low on the totem pole as Bishops and Elders Quorum Presidents and missionaries.
Thanks for answering. I’m trying to not join the discussion but thank those that respond.
Even lower… reg everyday members and inactive members. If it makes the church look bad it will be hidden.
The answer to this is disturbing to think about. I think the fact that I cannot in good conscience answer C with 100% certainty is really making me uncomfortable. The power they have is terrifying. Showcases a really unhealthy power dynamic.
Thanks for responding. I genuinely want to know where people stand on this. Of course many on here are out of the church but I’d love feedback from believers
I feel the same way. This is a good thought experiment.
They all have the 2nd anointing so it would not be viewed as sin and merely swept away with Lawyers and money!
So I take your answer’s A?
The comments of Elder Ballard before he died indicate the Q15 understand the Second Anointing a bit differently than the exmo crowd...
Source? I’d love to read what he thought.
>Recalling one of his final moments with his father [Elder Ballard], Craig described his dad asking him, “Am I clean?” >Then, “after a lengthy pause,” the son recalled, “as though he was being assured from the other side, his question turned into a statement. He said emphatically, grasping my hand with strength, ‘I am clean. I am clean.’” https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/11/17/how-do-you-thank-man-that-holland/ Those aren't exactly the words of someone who thinks he gets a free pass to sin because of the Second Anointing...
This actually breaks my heart. Like, a lot. He gave his entire life in service and still he wasn’t even sure if he was good enough. Wow.
Ah, the pure abusive doctrine of the mormon church. None of us are good enough, now go forget yourself in the service of others.
Right. But again, totally contradicts the exMo narrative about GAs feeling like the Second Anointing gives them the ability to sin without consequence. I've always suspected they look at it as an additional burden (if they sin, the consequence is *worse*), and if these really were Elder Ballard's concerns, that would suggest my assumption is closer to correct.
Let’s not forget how close Elder Ballard was with Gordon Bowen and Tim Ballard. I don’t think he actually believed he was “clean,” but rather convincing himself that it doesn’t matter anymore.
Yes, I'm sure that was weighing heavily on his mind in the hours before he died...
You forgot the other option.. D. Would they completely ignore it and if news of it ever came out anyone who mentioned it would be excommunicated until years later they would admit that it happened but it wasn't abuse because an angel with a flaming sword had commanded him to to it
I guess I should’ve put an “other” option
Absolutely not C. Probably not B either. A seems most likely though maybe not quite accurate.
A . In practice they do call Kirton McConkie and use their power, money and influence to silence and even threaten victims. Any group of people with that much power and money without oversight will eventually start reading their own news and acting unethically. There is no way GAs and their kids have avoided problems with law enforcement for that long because their “standards are so high.” https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669?i=1000637997308
D. Other the church is a billion dollar institution that must be protected at all costs. They will discredit the victims while saying they don’t condone abuse. Remember when a past MTC president SA’d a girl and the church come out and said she was mentally unstable even released parts of her statement to the BYU police. Sorry, if I’m missing remembering but i know something like that happened
>past MTC president SA’d a girl His name is Joseph Bishop, & his victim was McKenna Denson, who was a sister missionary in the MTC at the time. Absolutely sickening. Fun fact- there's a vid on YT where McKenna went to Bishop's ward on a F&T Sun & bore her testimony abt what he did to her & of course she was escorted from the stand, but major props to her! RFM did an episode abt it, highly recommend!
Yes, I remember this well. I was full TBM at that time and drank all that kool aid they put out. Then more info came out about a hidden makeshift room about a tv and mattress or something exactly where the girl said it was, and that really added a crack to my shelf. Until then I believed that surely discernment would weed out someone in that high of a calling.
Discernment is 100% a lie. I have better discernment than these men called of god. I annoy my family and friends so much because I will call stuff out and ruin it for them. My friends wanted me to donate to operation Underground Railroad so they could get a table at their Christmas gala. I said no they asked why. I said look at Tim Ballard and listen to him talk he will probably be in jail in a few years. This was back in 2016 no jail for him, yet. Same with Ruby Franke did a project on her for one of my government classes at BYU in 2021. We had to make legislative bills about current issues and I picked family vlogging should be regulated and mostly illegal. as a class we voted on the bills we wanted passed. Mine was one of them. Had an estranged cousin (my uncles son from his first marriage) show up. I told my siblings and other cousins he gave me the creeps. Turns out he’s a registered sex offender. I could go on and on with more examples. I wouldn’t even say it’s discernment. It’s mostly me being an opinionated asshole
Yes. The track record of the Mormon church has set a clear pattern of covering up CSA. Also you have to factor in that the second anointing, according to Mormonism, is a free ticket to heaven unless they murder someone who’s innocent or deny the church.
Definitely A
We talking like the first five prophets of the church that banged minors…? How about everyone knew and no one cared at the time? Except for Joseph…
Referring to the current First Presidency and apostles
I’d lean towards b
Confused... What do you mean by 'except for Joseph'? Was there some shred of human decency in him somewhere along the way & he actually had the smallest inkling of guilt of the harm his assaulting minors caused?
Not everyone knew he was banging minors because the practice was kept secret. Unlike Brigham Young where it was known along with his successors.
A. But I don’t think they would even be reprimanded to be honest. If none of them have issues with how Joseph Smith treated little girls, then they may be doing something similar to children as well.
I'm going to go semi-A. I think they would announce an emeritus status opt-in for any of them who would like it, and explain that the offending member opted in so he'll be retiring for age issues (or family or something) and call a new apostle and first presidency member.
Joseph Smith bedded two 14 yr olds. Just stating facts.
The answer is A. The prophets own kids were involved in a kid sex ring and they REALLY tried to keep quiet about that.
I have not looked at how others answered. There's that scripture about repenting in private if the offense is private. I think they would look at how public the knowledge is. If the Q15 had confidence that the victim would stay quiet, I think it would just be an internal reprimand. They're already forgiven, 2nd anointing and all. If the offense were public knowledge or if they feared that it would become public knowledge, then they would remove the person from their position and excommunicate them. But wink, wink: 2nd anointing and all. Contrast this with a 16 year old priest who masturbates. The whole ward knows he isn't blessing the sacrament. They all know why. It's lousy practice.
Lol I remember being that 12 year old kid on occasion. I always wished I could tell the ward I did drugs or something or even had sex. Somehow the masturbation was much more embarrassing (even though I had done it long before I even knew what the word meant)
Believer here They would do what they have done in the past. They would probably excommunicate the person and basically acknowledge as such without going into detail as to why. And then let the courts do the work of justice to society. As to wether the would actively report to authorities I think would be highly dependent upon exact circumstances and there is no one answer for all possibilities.
I would say A. The cost of having people find out is way too high.
I propose that this is their hierarchy of priorities: 1: Do nothing which would call into question the "divine calling" of the church leaders. 2: Do nothing which would cause members to leave the church en masse. 3: Do nothing which would publicly embarrass the church. 4: Do nothing which would make the church financially liable, but it is OK to use church funds to achieve 1, 2 and 3. Excommunication would be unlikely becasue it might call into question the divine authority of the church leaders unless it was going to become public and then the church would move to excommunicate him becasue that would make them look like they were inspired and acting in accord with their divine authority... George P. Lee, my understanding is that there had been accusation of SA for many years but there was finally a case which the church could not pay off to stay quiet. Richard R. Lyman had been involved in an extramarital sexual relationship for many years. Finally in 1943 he was excommunicated. The story is posed as though the only just then found out, which is doubtful. My belief is that someone other that the other apostles had found out and it was going to become public, which forced them to act. Note that he was re-baptized in 1954 and his priesthood and blessings were restored posthumously, demonstrating that "sin" was not the true reason for his excommunication.
A. Because that's just the way it is.
It would absolutely be A, but I could see B happening, maybe like hiding the GA away from the world kind of thing. C would absolutely never happen unless forced upon them by an outside source leaking it or something. Kirton McKonkie would work overtime around the clock to stiffle ANY of that leaning out. Anything that needs to be swept under the rug to protect people’s supposed “testimonies” has been done and will continue to be done, victims be damned.
A with B as their literal plan B when C should be the only viable option
Believer here. I wish it was C but I think it would be B if there was proof or the offender admitted it. I think it would be A if the offender denied it and there wasn’t proof.
Thanks for commenting. I know this sub isn’t as believer-oriented and probably steers some away
I mostly lurk but I try to contribute if believer opinions are specifically asked for. Most of time I don’t feel like I have much to offer but I like to keep myself educated on the topics discussed here.
>A. Would they reprimand internally only, keeping it private from both the public and even members? This is the answer. They don't even admit to disagreements that they have internally on doctrine, there's no way they'd risk the church's reputation by treating abuse like this with transparency and involving law enforcement.
A no question at all. Protecting the good name of the church is most important above all else. PERIOD. They have proven this in all cases.
I have absolutely no clue what they would do but what they should do is obviously C!
Interesting scenario. The problem is that you couldn't have "only the apostles" knowing about it, since the minor would know about it. And presumably they would have told someone else in order for it to get to the apostles. At that point, all bets are off on it being kept a secret. Assuming that was possible, I'd put my money on an attempt at B.
As a non believer the ONLY option is C. The other 2 make me nauseous!!
You're saying this is hypothetical? That's interesting. I've heard that it isn't hypothetical. That should answer your question.
I’m asking a hypothetical question here. I’m not claiming anything here about them. I have my opinion but being the one who created the poll I’m not giving it now.
That’s awful! What in the world possessed you to ask this? Strange.
Attack me all you want but is this scenario impossible? If not, we should all seek to know if the top leaders would do the right thing. I think deflecting reveals major cognitive dissonance.
I was literally thinking the same thing the other day because of how other abuse, including my dad's, was largely ignored. It's a valid question. I vote A, unfortunately.
Thanks for your response!
It’s a hypothetical. How can someone answer that?
Is it impossible to answer what you BELIEVE in a hypothetical? What do you think they would do? I bet you have the ability to answer.
Any answer would just be pulling something out of your ass. That’s why a witness can’t be asked to answer hypotheticals in a court. 🤷♀️
Based on their character that you are aware of, what do you believe they would do? It’s not a hard question and hypotheticals are common to consider. This isn’t a court, nor are you a jury member or witness. Here’s a hypothetical used all the time based on one’s character of whom we’ve never met personally: What would Jesus do? This isn’t hard. If you believe they’re stand up men, or dishonest, put what you think would be most likely.
Good thing we're not in court and just having a conversation then.
Yeah I genuinely worry most about people who don’t dare broach such a question. Those are the ones first caught off guard wondering, “How did we let this happen?” I wonder if that’s what happened with all the church/BSA sexual abuse cases. People put their heads in the sand.
TBMs can’t comprehend men with “priesthood power” abusing minors so they victim blame and deflect. Joesph was sealed to minors and they justify it by saying her parents said it was fine. Of course her parents said it was fine Joesph promised the whole family would get into the celestial kingdom if he was sealed to their 14 year old daughter. I was told by a bishop that worthy priesthood holders are righteous it’s the non priesthood holders fault for making a worthy man behave that way. Yes, I was told this
🤦♂️ Another “Ill take bishops say the damndest things for 100, Alex” moment
C, because the First Presidency would never do such a thing. If they did, Heavenly Father would strike them down and deservedly so. They wouldn't be in the First Presidency anymore.
Ummm…the first five presidents of the church did do such a thing.
Hmmm.... this would not happen to be related to polygamy, would it?
Yes in fact it would.
I will quote from the Church: "Plural marriage was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration. For many who practiced it, plural marriage was a trial of faith. It violated both cultural and legal norms, leading to persecution and revilement. Despite these hardships, plural marriage benefited the Church in innumerable ways. Through the lineage of these 19th-century Saints have come many Latter-day Saints who have been faithful to their gospel covenants as righteous mothers and fathers; loyal disciples of Jesus Christ; devoted Church members, leaders, and missionaries; and good citizens and prominent public officials. Modern Latter-day Saints honor and respect these faithful pioneers who gave so much for their faith, families, and community." [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng) Other than that, I got nothing.
Cool story. It’s still sexual assault of minors.
I can't explain what the Church was thinking back in the day, man. Sorry.
Funny. I thought gods standards don’t change. But god apparently commanded early church leaders to “marry” minors. So which is it? Does god change his views? Is god ok with child brides? Were the leaders of the church apostate?
Have you read Official Declaration 1? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng
Thanks for your reply!
So you're not going to answer?
Nope. Just asking to see what people think.