Another report of the church abusing the abused.

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
Atrasado
captain of 100
Posts: 433

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Atrasado »

Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 9:16 am
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 8:58 am
Robin Hood wrote: September 27th, 2022, 12:08 am
Atrasado wrote: September 26th, 2022, 9:53 am
Parties involved in communications aren't third parties to those communications. Since the letter was sent to her and she read it, she is still a witness to the letter so her reporting it isn't hearsay, it's testimony.

Also, there's a picture of some of it for you to look at if you want. It looks like I would expect it to, and it sure has the sound of an official priesthood communication. What is so unbelievable about it?
She is one party, we are another party, so the source is the third party. It is entirely proper to refer to the letter writer as the third party in this context.
The fact that most of the "letter" is obscured is suspicious to me.
We aren't a party to the communications between her and the Church, they are the two parties involved. So when she reports on communication between her and the Church it isn't hearsay because she's reporting on something to which she was a witness. It doesn't mean what she says is true, it just means that her testimony can't legitimately be discredited as hearsay.
hearsay - information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

This qualifies. We, the public, as she has publicly made a claim, cannot adequately substantiate her claims.
Whatever. I can't help you. I don't know if anyone can.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3053
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by oneClimbs »

I think that our culture today is far too quick to condemn before we know the whole story. We've seen this with Jussie Smolett, the Nicholas Sandmann defamation case, and on and on. There was a podcast called "Wrongful Conviction" that I listened to for a bit that was absolutely horrifying. Accusations would turn family and friends against an innocent person who would get thrown under the bus while the real perpetrator walked free or the false victim got away with a vengeance plot.

It's crazy how a story that can seem so convincing and so obvious turns out to be completely wrong. This is why you have to be so very careful. I do not like how people are paraded around on the media before all the evidence comes out. I think that the cops in the George Floyd case were likewise sacrificed witchhunt style to appease a narrative rather than justice.

The media loves mobocracy, they love to fuel rage because it gets eyeballs and brings in massive profits. Everyone has a right to due process, no matter the accusation.

I don't have a single doubt in my mind that abuse happens in this church because I have seen it among members (not systematized in leadership, mind you) and just about everywhere else in the world, it's a plague among mankind. For that reason, we should be vigilant, we should investigate claims, we should keep our eyes wide open and not let anything close to corruption reign among our people.

With that, we should also let due process do its thing and wait until we have all the information, because even then, that's not a guarantee that we have the real story.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8011

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Niemand »

oneClimbs wrote: September 27th, 2022, 10:48 am I think that our culture today is far too quick to condemn before we know the whole story. We've seen this with Jussie Smolett, the Nicholas Sandmann defamation case, and on and on. There was a podcast called "Wrongful Conviction" that I listened to for a bit that was absolutely horrifying. Accusations would turn family and friends against an innocent person who would get thrown under the bus while the real perpetrator walked free or the false victim got away with a vengeance plot.

It's crazy how a story that can seem so convincing and so obvious turns out to be completely wrong. This is why you have to be so very careful. I do not like how people are paraded around on the media before all the evidence comes out. I think that the cops in the George Floyd case were likewise sacrificed witchhunt style to appease a narrative rather than justice.

The media loves mobocracy, they love to fuel rage because it gets eyeballs and brings in massive profits. Everyone has a right to due process, no matter the accusation.

I don't have a single doubt in my mind that abuse happens in this church because I have seen it among members (not systematized in leadership, mind you) and just about everywhere else in the world, it's a plague among mankind. For that reason, we should be vigilant, we should investigate claims, we should keep our eyes wide open and not let anything close to corruption reign among our people.

With that, we should also let due process do its thing and wait until we have all the information, because even then, that's not a guarantee that we have the real story.
This is partly why I'm not a fan of the death penalty. False accusations have no comeback.

I know that when these things DO happen, they are hard to prove, but people's lives are destroyed when false accusations are made.

Niyr
captain of 100
Posts: 391

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Niyr »

Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 9:41 am
Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 9:16 am
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 8:58 am
Robin Hood wrote: September 27th, 2022, 12:08 am

She is one party, we are another party, so the source is the third party. It is entirely proper to refer to the letter writer as the third party in this context.
The fact that most of the "letter" is obscured is suspicious to me.
We aren't a party to the communications between her and the Church, they are the two parties involved. So when she reports on communication between her and the Church it isn't hearsay because she's reporting on something to which she was a witness. It doesn't mean what she says is true, it just means that her testimony can't legitimately be discredited as hearsay.
hearsay - information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

This qualifies. We, the public, as she has publicly made a claim, cannot adequately substantiate her claims.
Whatever. I can't help you. I don't know if anyone can.
Fantastic rebuttal. Sorry, I mean ad hominem.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7798
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Contact:

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

oneClimbs wrote: September 27th, 2022, 10:48 am
With that, we should also let due process do its thing and wait until we have all the information, because even then, that's not a guarantee that we have the real story.
Ah, that’s why the church threatened to exx her before she even spoke publicly. And why she spoke with 17 different church leaders. Due process…

Atrasado
captain of 100
Posts: 433

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Atrasado »

Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 11:56 am
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 9:41 am
Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 9:16 am
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 8:58 am
We aren't a party to the communications between her and the Church, they are the two parties involved. So when she reports on communication between her and the Church it isn't hearsay because she's reporting on something to which she was a witness. It doesn't mean what she says is true, it just means that her testimony can't legitimately be discredited as hearsay.
hearsay - information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

This qualifies. We, the public, as she has publicly made a claim, cannot adequately substantiate her claims.
Whatever. I can't help you. I don't know if anyone can.
Fantastic rebuttal. Sorry, I mean ad hominem.
If you want to twist the meaning of a word, or you simply don't understand it, and you don't want to learn, I can't help you.

The woman in question received the letter and read the letter, therefore she is a witness to the contents of the letter. If she had told a friend about the letter and the friend was explaining the letter without having seen or read it, that is hearsay.

That friend could still probably testify in court to establish that the letter had been discussed by the recipient, but could not testify as to the contents of the letter because they would merely be saying what they heard (hence the word hearsay).

It has nothing to do with the witness proving something to you or me or anyone else. If that were the case, every witness would be giving hearsay because no one can "prove" anything here in mortality. It is whether they possibly could know, of their own experience, what happened. So what that woman says is testimony (legal testimony if she had been sworn to it) and not hearsay. Ask any lawyer.

But did I just convince you? Probably not, because it seems you don't want to be convinced. That's fine, the best I can do is wish you godspeed and let us both go on our ways.

Niyr
captain of 100
Posts: 391

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Niyr »

Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 12:55 pm
Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 11:56 am
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 9:41 am
Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 9:16 am

hearsay - information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

This qualifies. We, the public, as she has publicly made a claim, cannot adequately substantiate her claims.
Whatever. I can't help you. I don't know if anyone can.
Fantastic rebuttal. Sorry, I mean ad hominem.
If you want to twist the meaning of a word, or you simply don't understand it, and you don't want to learn, I can't help you.

The woman in question received the letter and read the letter, therefore she is a witness to the contents of the letter. If she had told a friend about the letter and the friend was explaining the letter without having seen or read it, that is hearsay.

That friend could still probably testify in court to establish that the letter had been discussed by the recipient, but could not testify as to the contents of the letter because they would merely be saying what they heard (hence the word hearsay).

It has nothing to do with the witness proving something to you or me or anyone else. If that were the case, every witness would be giving hearsay because no one can "prove" anything here in mortality. It is whether they possibly could know, of their own experience, what happened. So what that woman says is testimony (legal testimony if she had been sworn to it) and not hearsay. Ask any lawyer.

But did I just convince you? Probably not, because it seems you don't want to be convinced. That's fine, the best I can do is wish you godspeed and let us both go on our ways.
I would love to go about our own ways, and I'm not trying to be convinced or be contrarian to the the actual story, but I commented to correct your insistence that 'hearsay' was used incorrectly, when it was not. We are not in court. She said things to the public that were not and cannot be substantiated. She has a chance to quell the notion of hearsay in court. Until then, if she insists on making claims to the "court" of public opinion, with no way for anyone to substantiate the claims at this point, then to the public, it is by definition hearsay.
Her public postings are not the courtroom and the public are not the legal jury.
Last edited by Niyr on September 27th, 2022, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3041

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Serragon »

Niemand wrote: September 27th, 2022, 11:01 am
oneClimbs wrote: September 27th, 2022, 10:48 am I think that our culture today is far too quick to condemn before we know the whole story. We've seen this with Jussie Smolett, the Nicholas Sandmann defamation case, and on and on. There was a podcast called "Wrongful Conviction" that I listened to for a bit that was absolutely horrifying. Accusations would turn family and friends against an innocent person who would get thrown under the bus while the real perpetrator walked free or the false victim got away with a vengeance plot.

It's crazy how a story that can seem so convincing and so obvious turns out to be completely wrong. This is why you have to be so very careful. I do not like how people are paraded around on the media before all the evidence comes out. I think that the cops in the George Floyd case were likewise sacrificed witchhunt style to appease a narrative rather than justice.

The media loves mobocracy, they love to fuel rage because it gets eyeballs and brings in massive profits. Everyone has a right to due process, no matter the accusation.

I don't have a single doubt in my mind that abuse happens in this church because I have seen it among members (not systematized in leadership, mind you) and just about everywhere else in the world, it's a plague among mankind. For that reason, we should be vigilant, we should investigate claims, we should keep our eyes wide open and not let anything close to corruption reign among our people.

With that, we should also let due process do its thing and wait until we have all the information, because even then, that's not a guarantee that we have the real story.
This is partly why I'm not a fan of the death penalty. False accusations have no comeback.

I know that when these things DO happen, they are hard to prove, but people's lives are destroyed when false accusations are made.
There is no comeback from any legal penalty that involves loss of your life or liberty. You can't give someone 40 years of freedom back any more than you can give them their life back.

False accusations should be treated with the same penalty that was or would have been exacted upon the victim of the accusation. The death penalty is an appropriate penalty for certain behaviors. It is not just to remove justice for the victim because you can't be 100 percent certain that you are applying justice to the accused.

Atrasado
captain of 100
Posts: 433

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Atrasado »

Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 1:17 pm
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 12:55 pm
Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 11:56 am
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 9:41 am
Whatever. I can't help you. I don't know if anyone can.
Fantastic rebuttal. Sorry, I mean ad hominem.
If you want to twist the meaning of a word, or you simply don't understand it, and you don't want to learn, I can't help you.

The woman in question received the letter and read the letter, therefore she is a witness to the contents of the letter. If she had told a friend about the letter and the friend was explaining the letter without having seen or read it, that is hearsay.

That friend could still probably testify in court to establish that the letter had been discussed by the recipient, but could not testify as to the contents of the letter because they would merely be saying what they heard (hence the word hearsay).

It has nothing to do with the witness proving something to you or me or anyone else. If that were the case, every witness would be giving hearsay because no one can "prove" anything here in mortality. It is whether they possibly could know, of their own experience, what happened. So what that woman says is testimony (legal testimony if she had been sworn to it) and not hearsay. Ask any lawyer.

But did I just convince you? Probably not, because it seems you don't want to be convinced. That's fine, the best I can do is wish you godspeed and let us both go on our ways.
I would love to go about our own ways, and I'm not trying to be convinced or be contrarian to the the actual story, but I commented to correct your insistence that 'hearsay' was used incorrectly, when it was not. We are not in court. She said things to the public that were not and cannot be substantiated. She has a chance to quell the notion of hearsay in court. Until then, if she insists on making claims to the "court" of public opinion, with no way for anyone to substantiate the claims at this point, then to the public, it is by definition hearsay.
Her public postings are not the courtroom and the public are not the legal jury.
Now I think you're just messing with me.

Hearsay is something you heard said, period. It's repeating something without having witnessed the underlying events. That's true under the legal definition or the common definition of the word. Her statement is not hearsay, at all, because she was party to the underlying events and she purports to have actual, personal knowledge thereof.

Have a great day!

Niyr
captain of 100
Posts: 391

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Niyr »

Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 2:45 pm
Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 1:17 pm
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 12:55 pm
Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 11:56 am

Fantastic rebuttal. Sorry, I mean ad hominem.
If you want to twist the meaning of a word, or you simply don't understand it, and you don't want to learn, I can't help you.

The woman in question received the letter and read the letter, therefore she is a witness to the contents of the letter. If she had told a friend about the letter and the friend was explaining the letter without having seen or read it, that is hearsay.

That friend could still probably testify in court to establish that the letter had been discussed by the recipient, but could not testify as to the contents of the letter because they would merely be saying what they heard (hence the word hearsay).

It has nothing to do with the witness proving something to you or me or anyone else. If that were the case, every witness would be giving hearsay because no one can "prove" anything here in mortality. It is whether they possibly could know, of their own experience, what happened. So what that woman says is testimony (legal testimony if she had been sworn to it) and not hearsay. Ask any lawyer.

But did I just convince you? Probably not, because it seems you don't want to be convinced. That's fine, the best I can do is wish you godspeed and let us both go on our ways.
I would love to go about our own ways, and I'm not trying to be convinced or be contrarian to the the actual story, but I commented to correct your insistence that 'hearsay' was used incorrectly, when it was not. We are not in court. She said things to the public that were not and cannot be substantiated. She has a chance to quell the notion of hearsay in court. Until then, if she insists on making claims to the "court" of public opinion, with no way for anyone to substantiate the claims at this point, then to the public, it is by definition hearsay.
Her public postings are not the courtroom and the public are not the legal jury.
Now I think you're just messing with me.

Hearsay is something you heard said, period. It's repeating something without having witnessed the underlying events. That's true under the legal definition or the common definition of the word. Her statement is not hearsay, at all, because she was party to the underlying events and she purports to have actual, personal knowledge thereof.

Have a great day!
Messing with?? Please.

"hearsay - information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."
Information received from [this woman] that [the public] cannot adequately substantiate.

Her information to herself is not hearsay. Information the public received from her is. It's not that hard.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7798
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Contact:

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Niyr, you need to understand the difference between hearsay vs testimony.

Atrasado
captain of 100
Posts: 433

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Atrasado »

Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 4:47 pm
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 2:45 pm
Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 1:17 pm
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 12:55 pm
If you want to twist the meaning of a word, or you simply don't understand it, and you don't want to learn, I can't help you.

The woman in question received the letter and read the letter, therefore she is a witness to the contents of the letter. If she had told a friend about the letter and the friend was explaining the letter without having seen or read it, that is hearsay.

That friend could still probably testify in court to establish that the letter had been discussed by the recipient, but could not testify as to the contents of the letter because they would merely be saying what they heard (hence the word hearsay).

It has nothing to do with the witness proving something to you or me or anyone else. If that were the case, every witness would be giving hearsay because no one can "prove" anything here in mortality. It is whether they possibly could know, of their own experience, what happened. So what that woman says is testimony (legal testimony if she had been sworn to it) and not hearsay. Ask any lawyer.

But did I just convince you? Probably not, because it seems you don't want to be convinced. That's fine, the best I can do is wish you godspeed and let us both go on our ways.
I would love to go about our own ways, and I'm not trying to be convinced or be contrarian to the the actual story, but I commented to correct your insistence that 'hearsay' was used incorrectly, when it was not. We are not in court. She said things to the public that were not and cannot be substantiated. She has a chance to quell the notion of hearsay in court. Until then, if she insists on making claims to the "court" of public opinion, with no way for anyone to substantiate the claims at this point, then to the public, it is by definition hearsay.
Her public postings are not the courtroom and the public are not the legal jury.
Now I think you're just messing with me.

Hearsay is something you heard said, period. It's repeating something without having witnessed the underlying events. That's true under the legal definition or the common definition of the word. Her statement is not hearsay, at all, because she was party to the underlying events and she purports to have actual, personal knowledge thereof.

Have a great day!
Messing with?? Please.

"hearsay - information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."
Information received from [this woman] that [the public] cannot adequately substantiate.

Her information to herself is not hearsay. Information the public received from her is. It's not that hard.
You might want to look at an actual dictionary and not just the Google definition. I looked at five of them and that's why I stuck to my guns.

Niyr
captain of 100
Posts: 391

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Niyr »

Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 5:18 pm
Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 4:47 pm
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 2:45 pm
Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 1:17 pm

I would love to go about our own ways, and I'm not trying to be convinced or be contrarian to the the actual story, but I commented to correct your insistence that 'hearsay' was used incorrectly, when it was not. We are not in court. She said things to the public that were not and cannot be substantiated. She has a chance to quell the notion of hearsay in court. Until then, if she insists on making claims to the "court" of public opinion, with no way for anyone to substantiate the claims at this point, then to the public, it is by definition hearsay.
Her public postings are not the courtroom and the public are not the legal jury.
Now I think you're just messing with me.

Hearsay is something you heard said, period. It's repeating something without having witnessed the underlying events. That's true under the legal definition or the common definition of the word. Her statement is not hearsay, at all, because she was party to the underlying events and she purports to have actual, personal knowledge thereof.

Have a great day!
Messing with?? Please.

"hearsay - information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."
Information received from [this woman] that [the public] cannot adequately substantiate.

Her information to herself is not hearsay. Information the public received from her is. It's not that hard.
You might want to look at an actual dictionary and not just the Google definition. I looked at five of them and that's why I stuck to my guns.
Oh boy..

Merriam Webster:
Definition of hearsay
1: RUMOR
Definition of rumor (Entry 1 of 2)
1: talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
2: a statement or report current without known authority for its truth

Oxford (the definition I originally posted):
hear·say
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

1828 Webster's Dictionary:
HE'ARSAY, noun [hear and say.] Report; rumor; fame; common talk.

Dictionary.com
hearsay
noun
1: unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:
2: an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:


You seem to conflate courtroom definitions with non-courtroom. We aren't talking about in the courtroom. Three or more parties aren't required. So yes, the definition of hearsay can apply to one's own personal witness outside of court when what they say cannot be verified.
Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 27th, 2022, 5:00 pm Niyr, you need to understand the difference between hearsay vs testimony.
You can't understand that at times, the two can be the same? She can testify, but we cannot verify.
Last edited by Niyr on September 27th, 2022, 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Atrasado
captain of 100
Posts: 433

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Atrasado »

Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 6:40 pm
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 5:18 pm
Niyr wrote: September 27th, 2022, 4:47 pm
Atrasado wrote: September 27th, 2022, 2:45 pm
Now I think you're just messing with me.

Hearsay is something you heard said, period. It's repeating something without having witnessed the underlying events. That's true under the legal definition or the common definition of the word. Her statement is not hearsay, at all, because she was party to the underlying events and she purports to have actual, personal knowledge thereof.

Have a great day!
Messing with?? Please.

"hearsay - information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."
Information received from [this woman] that [the public] cannot adequately substantiate.

Her information to herself is not hearsay. Information the public received from her is. It's not that hard.
You might want to look at an actual dictionary and not just the Google definition. I looked at five of them and that's why I stuck to my guns.
Oh boy..

Merriam Webster:
Definition of hearsay
1: RUMOR
Definition of rumor (Entry 1 of 2)
1: talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source (she is the source)
2: a statement or report current without known authority for its truth (she is the authority on this because it involved her, just as you are the authority on your life)

Oxford (the definition I originally posted):
hear·say
information received from other people (if I repeated what she said then that would be hearsay but it isn't for her because she is the source of the information) that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

1828 Webster's Dictionary:
HE'ARSAY, noun [hear and say.] Report; rumor; fame; common talk.

Dictionary.com
hearsay
noun
1: unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another (she is the source) and not part of one's direct knowledge (she has direct knowledge of the matter):
2: an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:

Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 27th, 2022, 5:00 pm Niyr, you need to understand the difference between hearsay vs testimony.
You can't understand that at times, the two can be the same? She can testify, but we cannot verify.
Please see the comments above. I think you're getting tried up on the idea that we can't verify her claims, but that isn't the main point of hearsay. Hearsay is literally hearing something and then saying it to someone else without becoming a party to the actions in question.

For example, when Frankone relates what he heard from that young man about ritualized sexual abuse in the SLC canyons that is hearsay. Frankone wasn't there so he cannot personally assert that what that young man said is true; he can only offer his opinion. Does that mean that what Frankone says isn't true, or that he shouldn't repeat it? Obviously not. But statements like those should not be granted the same level of credence as statements from a witness.

And that is the reason it is important to differentiate between hearsay and testimony. Testimony puts the name and integrity of the individual on the line in a way that hearsay never can which is why it should be granted a higher level of credence than mere rumor or hearsay.

She is a witness and by definition she cannot produce hearsay on this subject because she was telling what she heard or saw. That doesn't mean that we have to believe her, or that her testimony cannot be impeached. It just means that she is speaking of her own experiences and not another's. Common sense dictates that testimony is more likely to be true.
Last edited by Atrasado on September 30th, 2022, 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3053
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by oneClimbs »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 27th, 2022, 12:02 pm
oneClimbs wrote: September 27th, 2022, 10:48 am
With that, we should also let due process do its thing and wait until we have all the information, because even then, that's not a guarantee that we have the real story.
Ah, that’s why the church threatened to exx her before she even spoke publicly. And why she spoke with 17 different church leaders. Due process…
I'll say this much. When she came forward at 7 and 16, the bishop and therapist should have reported it. If they didn't, I think there should be some responsibility there because that should be unacceptable. She says she confided in a 17th, but did any of them report or suggest that she take things to the police?

It does look like she submitted a police report about a year ago and met with cold case detectives which is good and everything is under review but I would caution waiting until all the evidence comes out before doing a media blitz. looks like the abuser is dead too, so if guilty, they are likely experiencing a more effective form of justice.

But 40 years of this. Not sure what kind of evidence she has, but I guess if the guy is dead there is no need for due process in that respect. It does seem that especially in the past there was hesitance to report things like this. Seems to be better training now, perhaps because of things like this.

How exactly though did the church release confessions to the press? Were these audio recordings or notes? Can they even do that, I've never heard of something like that happening. When did that occur?

Tough one for sure.

User avatar
BigT
captain of 100
Posts: 166

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by BigT »

I would image the media rep fed the confessional details to the press. I wonder if someone could dig up some articles? The first thing you do is deny, then bribe or threaten, lastly settle out court if necessary. Agree that the bishop(s) who spilled the deets are despicable.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7798
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Contact:

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

oneClimbs wrote: September 30th, 2022, 11:48 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 27th, 2022, 12:02 pm
oneClimbs wrote: September 27th, 2022, 10:48 am
With that, we should also let due process do its thing and wait until we have all the information, because even then, that's not a guarantee that we have the real story.
Ah, that’s why the church threatened to exx her before she even spoke publicly. And why she spoke with 17 different church leaders. Due process…
I'll say this much. When she came forward at 7 and 16, the bishop and therapist should have reported it. If they didn't, I think there should be some responsibility there because that should be unacceptable. She says she confided in a 17th, but did any of them report or suggest that she take things to the police?

It does look like she submitted a police report about a year ago and met with cold case detectives which is good and everything is under review but I would caution waiting until all the evidence comes out before doing a media blitz. looks like the abuser is dead too, so if guilty, they are likely experiencing a more effective form of justice.

But 40 years of this. Not sure what kind of evidence she has, but I guess if the guy is dead there is no need for due process in that respect. It does seem that especially in the past there was hesitance to report things like this. Seems to be better training now, perhaps because of things like this.

How exactly though did the church release confessions to the press? Were these audio recordings or notes? Can they even do that, I've never heard of something like that happening. When did that occur?

Tough one for sure.
The church threatened her membership if she spoke publicly about the events.

Also, she obviously isn't doing this to receive some type of forgiveness/compensation from the abuser, since he's already dead. I believe this has far more to do with exposing the fact that children are abused and that the church has poor policies in place to help victims. She wants to prevent further suffering as was she has endured for 40 years.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7798
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Contact:

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

LDS Watchman wrote: September 26th, 2022, 9:29 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 26th, 2022, 9:25 pm I’m sure that was very profound, whatever you said.
Just calling a spade a spade.

But I do find it interesting that you always feel the need to virtue signal that you are ignoring me.
Woh.. hold on a minute here... did you get your username changed? ATTI... it's you!!!!!!!

Oh, and btw, I'm not virtue signaling. I just don't want people to think I'm a jerk for ignoring you. I guess I'll just ignore you going forward w/o any explanation.

I could actually say the same thing back to you. If you know I don't read your posts, why respond to me? Whatever you have to say you obviously know I'm not reading it, so you are apparently responding to everyone else who reads your posts and not me.

I'm kinda curious, why the name "LDS Watchman"?

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7212
Contact:

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by LDS Watchman »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 30th, 2022, 12:05 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: September 26th, 2022, 9:29 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 26th, 2022, 9:25 pm I’m sure that was very profound, whatever you said.
Just calling a spade a spade.

But I do find it interesting that you always feel the need to virtue signal that you are ignoring me.
Woh.. hold on a minute here... did you get your username changed? ATTI... it's you!!!!!!!

Oh, and btw, I'm not virtue signaling. I just don't want people to think I'm a jerk for ignoring you. I guess I'll just ignore you going forward w/o any explanation.

I could actually say the same thing back to you. If you know I don't read your posts, why respond to me? Whatever you have to say you obviously know I'm not reading it, so you are apparently responding to everyone else who reads your posts and not me.

I'm kinda curious, why the name "LDS Watchman"?
You obviously do read my posts.

And I honestly don't care if you don't read them. Lots of people read these discussions. When you make nonsensical posts and I respond by pointing out facts, it's really for the benefit of others, because I know with you it's fallen on deaf ears.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7798
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Contact:

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

LDS Watchman wrote: September 30th, 2022, 12:46 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 30th, 2022, 12:05 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: September 26th, 2022, 9:29 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 26th, 2022, 9:25 pm I’m sure that was very profound, whatever you said.
Just calling a spade a spade.

But I do find it interesting that you always feel the need to virtue signal that you are ignoring me.
Woh.. hold on a minute here... did you get your username changed? ATTI... it's you!!!!!!!

Oh, and btw, I'm not virtue signaling. I just don't want people to think I'm a jerk for ignoring you. I guess I'll just ignore you going forward w/o any explanation.

I could actually say the same thing back to you. If you know I don't read your posts, why respond to me? Whatever you have to say you obviously know I'm not reading it, so you are apparently responding to everyone else who reads your posts and not me.

I'm kinda curious, why the name "LDS Watchman"?
You obviously do read my posts.

And I honestly don't care if you don't read them. Lots of people read these discussions. When you make nonsensical posts and I respond by pointing out facts, it's really for the benefit of others, because I know with you it's fallen on deaf ears.
Yes, I don’t read them. But since you changed your name I now see them. That is until update my settings.

I do love how you present yourself as the “facts” man. Maybe that’s why you chose the name LDS Watchman…. Or is it?

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9413
Location: England

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Luke »

Did Atticus get banned?

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7798
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Contact:

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Luke wrote: September 30th, 2022, 2:13 pm Did Atticus get banned?
Nope, he just changed his name to "LDS Watchman", but he seems a bit reluctant to explain why.... hmm....

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9413
Location: England

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 30th, 2022, 2:23 pm
Luke wrote: September 30th, 2022, 2:13 pm Did Atticus get banned?
Nope, he just changed his name to "LDS Watchman", but he seems a bit reluctant to explain why.... hmm....
It’s a separate account. The LDS Watchman account has been on here for longer then the Atticus account.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7798
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Contact:

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Luke wrote: September 30th, 2022, 2:25 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 30th, 2022, 2:23 pm
Luke wrote: September 30th, 2022, 2:13 pm Did Atticus get banned?
Nope, he just changed his name to "LDS Watchman", but he seems a bit reluctant to explain why.... hmm....
It’s a separate account. The LDS Watchman account has been on here for longer then the Atticus account.
That's weird. That means he somehow merged the two. Further up in this thread he quoted me and it showed the name Atticus. That same user is now LDS Watchman. They are obviously the same person... sounds like the admins are getting funky behind the scenes.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9413
Location: England

Re: Another report of the church abusing the abused.

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 30th, 2022, 2:53 pm
Luke wrote: September 30th, 2022, 2:25 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: September 30th, 2022, 2:23 pm
Luke wrote: September 30th, 2022, 2:13 pm Did Atticus get banned?
Nope, he just changed his name to "LDS Watchman", but he seems a bit reluctant to explain why.... hmm....
It’s a separate account. The LDS Watchman account has been on here for longer then the Atticus account.
That's weird. That means he somehow merged the two. Further up in this thread he quoted me and it showed the name Atticus. That same user is now LDS Watchman. They are obviously the same person... sounds like the admins are getting funky behind the scenes.
That, or the account called “Atticus” was changed, and now there are two called “LDS Watchman”.

Post Reply