For those opposed to Bishops asking about masturbation

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

OK.

We had a bishop here in Oklahoma who was sexually abusing children.

The family went to the Stake President about it, and the Stake President defended the bishop and did nothing and got angry with the family. The family wrote Church headquarters, and the letters were returned to the Stake President. The family went to the media about the problem, and the family was promptly excommunicated from the Church.

The local Mormon congressman publicly sided with the Stake President, and members of the Church publicly crucified this family for going to the media.
A few months later, the Bishop was arrested for exposing himself to an undercover cop in Norman.

I agree that the risk is very small, and that most people in the Church are good people who are just trying to do their best.

But anytime you have an adult male authority figure interviewing teenagers and asking detailed questions about sexual issues...at least there can easily be an appearance of impropriety. I think it would be better if the Church encouraged teenagers to counsel with their parents about these issues. A simple question from the bishop phrased "Do you obey the law of chastity?" should be sufficient.

The family didn't go to legal authorities? If they did, what did the legal authorities determine?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

OK.

We had a bishop here in Oklahoma who was sexually abusing children.

The family went to the Stake President about it, and the Stake President defended the bishop and did nothing and got angry with the family. The family wrote Church headquarters, and the letters were returned to the Stake President. The family went to the media about the problem, and the family was promptly excommunicated from the Church.

The local Mormon congressman publicly sided with the Stake President, and members of the Church publicly crucified this family for going to the media.
A few months later, the Bishop was arrested for exposing himself to an undercover cop in Norman.

I agree that the risk is very small, and that most people in the Church are good people who are just trying to do their best.

But anytime you have an adult male authority figure interviewing teenagers and asking detailed questions about sexual issues...at least there can easily be an appearance of impropriety. I think it would be better if the Church encouraged teenagers to counsel with their parents about these issues. A simple question from the bishop phrased "Do you obey the law of chastity?" should be sufficient.

Two undeniable truths:

Nobody has more or better stories about service and charity than Pres. Monson.

Nobody has more or better stories about sexual perversions related to the church and church members than SoonerCoug.

Mike did you start this thread just to get a couple more stories out of SC?

[MikeWaters]

I consider S.C.'s stories, not in the same vein as Pres. Monson, but more like Paul H. Dunn. Instead of made up faith-inspiring stories, they are made up doubt-inspiring stories.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The family didn't go to legal authorities? If they did, what did the legal authorities determine?

They did go to legal authorities. They didn't arrest the guy for abuse--not enough evidence. They did arrest him for masturbating in front of the cop, though.

This was back in 1994, and I think this was one of the more public cases that prompted the Church to aggressively train lay clergy to deal properly with allegations of child abuse.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

They did go to legal authorities. They didn't arrest the guy for abuse--not enough evidence. They did arrest him for masturbating in front of the cop, though.

This was back in 1994, and I think this was one of the more public cases that prompted the Church to more aggressively train lay clergy to deal properly with allegations of child abuse.

What exactly should the Stake President have done? Released him, based on very modest suspicion?

What was the true basis for the excommunication? Not sustaining local bishop, or something else?

Did the family sue the church?

Does masturbating in front of a cop vindicate the family?

[MikeWaters]

What was the family's name, and the bishop's name. If it's a famous case, I'm sure there are reports on the internet.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What was the family's name, and the bishop's name. If it's a famous case, I'm sure there are reports on the internet.

Yeah, it's on the internet. Here is the mother's letter to the Bishop when she was excommunicated.



29 July 1994

Bishop Neal P. Hancock:

This letter is in reference to my defense to be presented before you on Sunday, July 31, 1994, at 5:00 PM in Surrey Hills. You and Leon Fulton have charged me to be guilty of: "Conduct contrary to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, i.e., apostasy and unChristlike conduct" and "adversely affecting the good name of the Church, the testimonies and lives of its members."

I plead guilty to the following:

1. I am guilty of believing [that] my husband, Jack, was sexually abused by his bishop, Wallace Leonard Simpson, as a teenager.

2. I am guilty of believing [that] my son, Scott was sexually abused by his bishop, Stanley Dennis Powell, as a teenager.

3. I am guilty of believing [that] my friend, Roseanne Hales, testified under oath, subject to perjury, that she and her children were sexually and ritually abused by then-Bishop Stanley Dennis Powell, her former husband, Peter Campbell, and other leaders and members of the Mormon Church.

4. I am guilty of believing [that] the Church priesthood leaders have shown more concern about protecting the reputation of the Church than the harm done to the children from being sexually abused in secret by men claiming to be true servants of God in the name of his son Jesus Christ.

5. I am guilty of believing [that] I have a moral obligation to warn all of God’s children equally of the signs of sexual and ritual abuse, perpetrated by those in authority with the threat of being infected by the AIDS virus, by whatever means is available to me, guaranteed under my First Amendment right of free speech.

This issue is not about vengeance or forgiveness. I love my Church. It is because of my love for Jesus Christ and his love for the children [that] I have decided, if I can’t warn the parents within the system, the only other choice is to warn them from sources outside the Church’s information network. I am willing to sacrifice my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rather than be bound by silence from spiritual intimidation.

God’s will be done.

(Signed) Merradyth A. McCallister

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What was the family's name, and the bishop's name. If it's a famous case, I'm sure there are reports on the internet.

Powell was the one arrested for masturbating in front of the undercover cop. There was more than one accuser...I had forgotten that part. This is a very well known story in these parts. I can't believe you compared me to Paul Dunn.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

They did go to legal authorities. They didn't arrest the guy for abuse--not enough evidence. They did arrest him for masturbating in front of the cop, though.

This was back in 1994, and I think this was one of the more public cases that prompted the Church to aggressively train lay clergy to deal properly with allegations of child abuse.

Maybe I'm naive. It's illegal to masturbate in front of a cop? And even more curious...a cop set up a sting to nab someone who might be tempted to masturbate in front of a cop?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Maybe I'm naive. It's illegal to masturbate in front of a cop? And even more curious...a cop set up a sting to nab someone who might be tempted to masturbate in front of a cop?

It was in a public restroom at OU in Norman. The cop just happened to be the victim. Not a sting.