Stake president


Recommended Posts

If I may reiterate what NT says. Initially, my impression was that this was some kind of non-consensual relationship (SP was sending/requesting sexually explicit material when the friend did not want them). I don't know all of the laws, but a minor usually cannot give consent. Even an adult has rights to be free from sexual harassment/assault. The Church has said that it has no tolerance for sexual assault. If what the SP is doing can be considered sexual harrassment/assault, then approach the appropriate authorities (law enforcement certainly and church leadership, if desired).

If this is/was a consensual relationship ("affair") between legal adults, and she wants out of the relationship, then she needs to tell him that she wants out of the relationship. If the SP pursues the relationship, then it begins to approach assault again, in which case, see the previous paragraph.

If both are adults and want to remain in the relationship, then church authorities should have a chance to review whether an accused adulterer (or is the "affair" emotional rather than sexual?) should remain as stake president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This doesn’t have to be particularly complex.  If her allegations are true, the Church needs her—HER—to come forward; probably by contacting a member of the Area Presidency where she lives—end of story.

 

Lets double down on this point...  It needs to be HER...  From anyone else it is gossip... and will be treated accordingly

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@estradling75 There's a lot of truth to that -- hopefully she can come forward. The main exception I might note is if this really is a situation that might fall under "sexual abuse/assault/harassment of a minor". If it is that kind of scenario, there could be mandatory reporting laws that come into play that could require someone other than the friend to say something to someone. I agree that, if this is a case of something consensual between two adults, that any report from something other than the friend could be seen as gossip. However, if there is something non-consensual involved or if the friend is a minor, that the OP may want to consider coming forward even at the risk of being seen as a gossip. The recent changes/clarifications for how priesthood leaders should handle reports of abuse specifically says that no report should be taken lightly (which, IMO, includes treating the informant as a "gossip").

Of course, all of that really depends on details that the OP has not divulged to us. Without those details, all we can really do is make suggestions based on our various assumptions and inferences -- which could all be wrong. Hopefully, somewhere in this discussion are some ideas and suggestions that actually apply to the OP's specific situation that he/she can use to help the friend.

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@estradling75 There's a lot of truth to that -- hopefully she can come forward. The main exception I might note is if this really is a situation that might fall under "sexual abuse/assault/harassment of a minor". If it is that kind of scenario, there could be mandatory reporting laws that come into play that could require someone other than the friend to say something to someone. I agree that, if this is a case of something consensual between two adults, that any report from something other than the friend could be seen as gossip. However, if there is something non-consensual involved or if the friend is a minor, that the OP may want to consider coming forward even at the risk of being seen as a gossip. The recent changes/clarifications for how priesthood leaders should handle reports of abuse specifically says that no report should be taken lightly (which, IMO, includes treating the informant as a "gossip").

Of course, all of that really depends on details that the OP has not divulged to us. Without those details, all we can really do is make suggestions based on our various assumptions and inferences -- which could all be wrong. Hopefully, somewhere in this discussion are some ideas and suggestions that actually apply to the OP's specific situation that he/she can use to help the friend.

I already mention in my first post the need to get the law involved if actions violated the law.  Others have as well.  Since the OP has posted since then and not mentioned legal issues I am going to assume there is no legally actionable events.  (we can only go by what the OP posts)

If there are legally actionable events then the answer for the OP is to trigger such (we have repeatedly stated this)... Everything else will follow.

Since the OP has not mentioned any legally actionable event (All such speculation has been from us trying to cover all our bases) the only course of action that appears to be open to the OP is to try to use their influence to convince their best friend to come forward and let the church authorities know.  Nothing else will accomplish anything based on what the OP has told us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2018 at 11:11 PM, estradling75 said:

 

Lets double down on this point...  It needs to be HER...  From anyone else it is gossip... and will be treated accordingly

 

It SHOULD be her, but it does not need to be her (and by her I assume you mean the woman in the affair).  The OP can go to her Bishop (not the Area President) and tell him what she has said here.  Handbook 1 spells out what a Bishop should do in a case like that and it is not to brush it off as gossip and ignore it.  It is a legitimate (and loving) thing to do.  After she informs the Bishop it is his job to investigate if it is true or not.  If the woman is in another ward then he would get that Bishop to investigate the accusation. If it is an endowed MP holder who is accused it would normally be the SP to investigate but since the SP is involved it would go the AP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

It SHOULD be her, but it does not need to be her (and by her I assume you mean the woman in the affair).  The OP can go to her Bishop (not the Area President) and tell him what she has said here.  Handbook 1 spells out what a Bishop should do in a case like that and it is not to brush it off as gossip and ignore it.  It is a legitimate (and loving) thing to do.  After she informs the Bishop it is his job to investigate if it is true or not.  If the woman is in another ward then he would get that Bishop to investigate the accusation. If it is an endowed MP holder who is accused it would normally be the SP to investigate but since the SP is involved it would go the AP.

And how exactly is a Bishop suppose to investigate?  Bishop's are not trained investigators, and generally do not have a bunch of free time.  He hears a third hand report, so he contacts the Stake President in question and asks.  The Stake President denies...  He is stopped because it is either the word of the Stake President or the Third Party report with no proof.  The standard is Innocent until Proven Guilty and there is no proof without her.  And the generally speaking the Bishop has no skills in digging up proof.

And do not forget that per the OP this woman is not a member... Chances are she has no idea who her local bishop is... and so it is unlikely the Bishop will know her either so that works against a third party report.

As for directions in Handbook 1 we do not have access to what it says so we do not know but I would be really surprised if it required the Bishop to investigate a Higher authority and possibly one not even in his direct line.  The most reasonable course of action would be to require the Bishop to bump it up to a higher level.

And it still has the issue of lacking evidence to take action.  To take anyone down the church needs more then a random third party report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, estradling75 said:

And how exactly is a Bishop suppose to investigate?  Bishop's are not trained investigators, and generally do not have a bunch of free time.  He hears a third hand report, so he contacts the Stake President in question and asks.  The Stake President denies...  He is stopped because it is either the word of the Stake President or the Third Party report with no proof.  The standard is Innocent until Proven Guilty and there is no proof without her.  And the generally speaking the Bishop has no skills in digging up proof.

And do not forget that per the OP this woman is not a member... Chances are she has no idea who her local bishop is... and so it is unlikely the Bishop will know her either so that works against a third party report.

As for directions in Handbook 1 we do not have access to what it says so we do not know but I would be really surprised if it required the Bishop to investigate a Higher authority and possibly one not even in his direct line.  The most reasonable course of action would be to require the Bishop to bump it up to a higher level.

And it still has the issue of lacking evidence to take action.  To take anyone down the church needs more then a random third party report.

As a ward clerk I do have access to Handbook 1.  I don't make this stuff up.  I could post exactly what it says but that is frowned on.

He doesn't ring up the SP on the phone and casually ask,  the SP has a priesthood interview with his Bishop who is standing in for the Lord in the matter.  Even the prophet has a Bishop he has to account to.  I missed it saying that the the woman was not LDS, but that doesn't stop the Bishop from asking her to meet with him, and her word is not less for being a non-member. I think her not beiing LDS makes it all the more improtant for the OP to tell the Bishop.

If they both deny it but the Bishop has reliable evidence to support the accusation then he (or the SP if it is a MP holder, but in this case the AP) are to do what they can to gather further evidence within the limits of what is appropriate.  They do not do surveillance or recording, or anything like that, but if there are elements of somebody's story that they could reasonably verify or disprove they should do that.  I assume that if the story makes it so other ward members could help to fact check the story he could choose to interview them as well, like the wife of the SP perhaps.   He can delegate the investigation to two reliable MP holders if he wants, so the AP could assign the investigation to the the Bishop and a HC member or two HC members or whatever. 

Even if they both deny it and there isn't sufficient  evidence to call a disciplinary council, the priesthood authority of the accused is entitled to revelation on the matter and so may feel prompted to release them from their callings.  I think that would be an improvement for the stake.

The handbook emphasizes that the conduct of investigators must be becoming of a priesthood holder and legal.  If it is a matter the authorities are investigating it should be left to them.  The church has a phone number for Bishops to call for legal guidance as well.

In some places the law is that any report of abuse of a minor that a Bishop hears about must be reported to the authorities or they themselves could go to jail.  My Bishop and I talked about the law in our area and he said if somebody came and confessed that they poisoned their spouse to death he would have to keep that confidential, even if put under oath, but if a spouse slapped their partner's face in front of the kids he could go to jail if he doesn't report it to the authorities as a case of child abuse.

The OP should go to her Bishop and tell him everything they know and leave the rest to the church.  If the OP doesn't do that then they are helping to cover up for the SP and wouldn't a part of the sin then be on the OP if they do that?  Is the OP going to sustain the SP at the next Stake or Ward conference given all this?  If they oppose (and this would be a legitimate reason to oppose) then they will have a meeting with a priesthood authority (not the SP) to explain why.  Might as well see the Bishop now and do it in a less public way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

As a ward clerk I do have access to Handbook 1.  I don't make this stuff up.  I could post exactly what it says but that is frowned on.

He doesn't ring up the SP on the phone and casually ask,  the SP has a priesthood interview with his Bishop who is standing in for the Lord in the matter.  Even the prophet has a Bishop he has to account to.  I missed it saying that the the woman was not LDS, but that doesn't stop the Bishop from asking her to meet with him, and her word is not less for being a non-member. I think her not beiing LDS makes it all the more improtant for the OP to tell the Bishop.

If they both deny it but the Bishop has reliable evidence to support the accusation then he (or the SP if it is a MP holder, but in this case the AP) are to do what they can to gather further evidence within the limits of what is appropriate.  They do not do surveillance or recording, or anything like that, but if there are elements of somebody's story that they could reasonably verify or disprove they should do that.  I assume that if the story makes it so other ward members could help to fact check the story he could choose to interview them as well, like the wife of the SP perhaps.   He can delegate the investigation to two reliable MP holders if he wants, so the AP could assign the investigation to the the Bishop and a HC member or two HC members or whatever. 

Even if they both deny it and there isn't sufficient  evidence to call a disciplinary council, the priesthood authority of the accused is entitled to revelation on the matter and so may feel prompted to release them from their callings.  I think that would be an improvement for the stake.

The handbook emphasizes that the conduct of investigators must be becoming of a priesthood holder and legal.  If it is a matter the authorities are investigating it should be left to them.  The church has a phone number for Bishops to call for legal guidance as well.

In some places the law is that any report of abuse of a minor that a Bishop hears about must be reported to the authorities or they themselves could go to jail.  My Bishop and I talked about the law in our area and he said if somebody came and confessed that they poisoned their spouse to death he would have to keep that confidential, even if put under oath, but if a spouse slapped their partner's face in front of the kids he could go to jail if he doesn't report it to the authorities as a case of child abuse.

The OP should go to her Bishop and tell him everything they know and leave the rest to the church.  If the OP doesn't do that then they are helping to cover up for the SP and wouldn't a part of the sin then be on the OP if they do that?  Is the OP going to sustain the SP at the next Stake or Ward conference given all this?  If they oppose (and this would be a legitimate reason to oppose) then they will have a meeting with a priesthood authority (not the SP) to explain why.  Might as well see the Bishop now and do it in a less public way.

Which is exactly my point...  The OP wants to "Stop the Stake President" but he is not a witness except by hearsay.  The Lady in question (per the OP) is not a member and does not want to take any action (again per the OP)..  The Odds that the Stake President is both guilty and willing to confess should his bishop call him in and presents what amounts to basically rumor and gossip seem incredibly low.

Those are not good odds for the OP to accomplish their desires.

Their by far best bet (and since I do not like the idea of corrupt leaders the one I feel they needs to take) is to convince his friend to come forth.  Should the Best Friend give first hand testimony and show/hand over photographic evidence, it stops being a case of "she said"  "he said" with no evidence but hearsay or confession.  But rather if that happens then it is hard evidence and the Church can act swiftly.

Now since you are a Clerk and have access to a handbook in your personal judgment...  What of two possibilities to you think is more likely to accomplish the OP desires?  A hearsay testimony which both parties deny....  Or the "Best Friend" offering first hand testimony and physical proof. ... To me this answer seems as plain as the nose on my face but you seem to think differently and I have no idea why.

As for getting the Law involved let me state once again the OP has given no indication that any laws have been broken.  And has basically ignored all posts about involving the local police.  While it has been mentioned in order to cover all the basis it appears to be irrelevant to the OP and therefore this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Which is exactly my point...  The OP wants to "Stop the Stake President" but he is not a witness except by hearsay.  The Lady in question (per the OP) is not a member and does not want to take any action (again per the OP)..  The Odds that the Stake President is both guilty and willing to confess should his bishop call him in and presents what amounts to basically rumor and gossip seem incredibly low.

Those are not good odds for the OP to accomplish their desires.

Their by far best bet (and since I do not like the idea of corrupt leaders the one I feel they needs to take) is to convince his friend to come forth.  Should the Best Friend give first hand testimony and show/hand over photographic evidence, it stops being a case of "she said"  "he said" with no evidence but hearsay or confession.  But rather if that happens then it is hard evidence and the Church can act swiftly.

Now since you are a Clerk and have access to a handbook in your personal judgment...  What of two possibilities to you think is more likely to accomplish the OP desires?  A hearsay testimony which both parties deny....  Or the "Best Friend" offering first hand testimony and physical proof. ... To me this answer seems as plain as the nose on my face but you seem to think differently and I have no idea why.

As for getting the Law involved let me state once again the OP has given no indication that any laws have been broken.  And has basically ignored all posts about involving the local police.  While it has been mentioned in order to cover all the basis it appears to be irrelevant to the OP and therefore this case.

It isn't about accomplishing what the OP desires, it is about doing what is right, even if it doesn't appear likely to work.  If the OP can't convince her to confess (or at least provide evidence the OP can take to the Bishop) the OP should still go and say what he knows.  At the very least the OP will shed himself of any accountability in the matter.  And as I said before, even if the SP denies and there is no evidence, the spirit can still bear witness of the truth of it to the AP and lead to the SP being released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

It isn't about accomplishing what the OP desires, it is about doing what is right, even if it doesn't appear likely to work.  If the OP can't convince her to confess (or at least provide evidence the OP can take to the Bishop) the OP should still go and say what he knows.  At the very least the OP will shed himself of any accountability in the matter.  And as I said before, even if the SP denies and there is no evidence, the spirit can still bear witness of the truth of it to the AP and lead to the SP being released.

The only reason the OP posted was to figure out the best way to get what they want. And the Right thing to do is for the Best Friend to come forward  Full STOP.  Thus to best accomplish both ends the OP needs to turn all of their efforts to convincing the Best Friend to come forward.  Because it is the RIGHT THING to do.

Its only when the OP can't get the Right thing (ie the Best Friend coming forward) that they might be forced to try the LESSER thing and that is to try to wash their hands of the matter.  An action that is unlikely to accomplish anything but Alienate the Best Friend.  After all is a total stranger called me up and asked me to tell him private details of my personal life  because Friend X blabbed something I told them confidence, as soon as I make that connection, Friend X would quickly become Ex Friend X.  And I really doubt the OP will feel to good about accomplishing nothing but alienation of their best friend.  But hey at least their hands are clean.

As for the spirit.. of course the Lord can reveal things... when the Lord in his wisdom choose to.  We have no control over that.  In my experience the Lord tends to give sinners quite a bit of room and time to either correct or more fully condemn themselves.  Thus we can not depend on the Spirit and will of the Lord to make up for best friend unwillingness, and lack of evidence.  Rather we can most likely count on the Lord willingness to respect the agency of all involved until they correct themselves or more fully condemn themselves in the eyes of the Lord.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

The only reason the OP posted was to figure out the best way to get what they want. And the Right thing to do is for the Best Friend to come forward  Full STOP.  Thus to best accomplish both ends the OP needs to turn all of their efforts to convincing the Best Friend to come forward.  Because it is the RIGHT THING to do.

Its only when the OP can't get the Right thing (ie the Best Friend coming forward) that they might be forced to try the LESSER thing and that is to try to wash their hands of the matter.  An action that is unlikely to accomplish anything but Alienate the Best Friend.  After all is a total stranger called me up and asked me to tell him private details of my personal life  because Friend X blabbed something I told them confidence, as soon as I make that connection, Friend X would quickly become Ex Friend X.  And I really doubt the OP will feel to good about accomplishing nothing but alienation of their best friend.  But hey at least their hands are clean.

As for the spirit.. of course the Lord can reveal things... when the Lord in his wisdom choose to.  We have no control over that.  In my experience the Lord tends to give sinners quite a bit of room and time to either correct or more fully condemn themselves.  Thus we can not depend on the Spirit and will of the Lord to make up for best friend unwillingness, and lack of evidence.  Rather we can most likely count on the Lord willingness to respect the agency of all involved until they correct themselves or more fully condemn themselves in the eyes of the Lord.

I agree that the right thing for the woman to do is go to the Bishop and the right thing for the OP to do is try to get the woman to go, but if it becomes clear she wont do that then the right thing is for the OP to go to the Bishop himself.

We do have some control over when the Lord reveals things.  We control if we are worthy of revelation and we control if we ask for revelation or not.  The Lord often waits for us to ask before he reveals something, and if somebody doesn't know there is a reason to ask then they are not going to ask and not get an answer.  The AP needs to interview this SP and listen to what the Spirit says to him in that interview more than what the SP says to him.  He need to go to the Lord and ask if this SP is worthy of the calling he has or should be released.  Right now he has no reason to hold such an interview or ask the Lord about releasing the SP.  Somebody needs to go to the Bishop and get the ball rolling on this so he has a reason to interview and ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

I agree that the right thing for the woman to do is go to the Bishop

Why? She's not LDS. She has no ecclesiastical reason to go to the bishop, and since the bishop is subordinate to the stake president, it doesn't seem logical to go to him.

Look, I suspect the OP is simply nonsense. It is certainly possible that a stake president is stepping out on his wife, but the odds are low, and I don't take the word of a random internet newbie. But given the situation presented, going to the bishop simply does not seem a reasonable course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Why? She's not LDS. She has no ecclesiastical reason to go to the bishop, and since the bishop is subordinate to the stake president, it doesn't seem logical to go to him.

Look, I suspect the OP is simply nonsense. It is certainly possible that a stake president is stepping out on his wife, but the odds are low, and I don't take the word of a random internet newbie. But given the situation presented, going to the bishop simply does not seem a reasonable course of action.

Her not being a member just makes it hard for her to see that going to the Bishop is the right thing to do.  A Bishop is bishop to ALL people who live in the ward boundaries, not just the members.  Also, Stake Presidents (and even Prophets and Apostles) have Bishops who preside over them when it comes to matters a Bishop is responsible for.  If for example a SP was out of work and needed financial help from the church, he would need to go see his Bishop about it same as any other member of his ward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Her not being a member just makes it hard for her to see that going to the Bishop is the right thing to do.  A Bishop is bishop to ALL people who live in the ward boundaries, not just the members.  Also, Stake Presidents (and even Prophets and Apostles) have Bishops who preside over them when it comes to matters a Bishop is responsible for.  If for example a SP was out of work and needed financial help from the church, he would need to go see his Bishop about it same as any other member of his ward.

Yes, I know all this. But the woman is not looking to confess her sins and seek repentance. If you believe the OP (which, as I said, I don't), she's looking to make it known that the stake president is a hypocrite.

If I were in that position, I might well go to my bishop. But that's mainly because I know and intimately trust him. If not for that, I would look to give my evidence to someone not subordinate to the stake president, preferably to someone above him in the hierarchy. How much moreso someone who is not even LDS and does not particularly care about the Church's hierarchical structure, except insofar as it impacts her report?

Someone I'm close to had an issue with his mission president being dishonest, in sort of a spectacular way. This young man told adult missionary couples what was going on, and was chastised for his "interference" in things that "weren't his business". His mission president sent him home, at which point he contacted a General Authority and, eventually, after quite a while, the mission president was found out and removed. Obviously, this was a highly unusual situation, as much as or more than if it were a stake president. But it illustrates the wisdom of handling such an out-of-the-ordinary complaint in an out-of-the-ordinary way.

I'm actually arguing much more strongly than I feel. If the hypothetical, probably non-existent, woman went to her bishop (whether or not she's LDS), that would likely be a sufficient step. But the Church's hierarchy was set up under the assumption that the leaders called to fill the positions would not spectacularly abuse those positions. If and when they do, I think outside-the-box thinking and acting is in order. But again, I'm not married to this position. Mostly I'm reacting to the thought of a non-Latter-day Saint trying to navigate the Church's Priesthood structure to try to figure out where to file a complaint. In such a bizarre case, I don't think saying "You need to go talk to your bishop" is required, or perhaps even prudent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Mostly I'm reacting to the thought of a non-Latter-day Saint trying to navigate the Church's Priesthood structure to try to figure out where to file a complaint.

Pfff.  I suspect even the majority of members don't know how to navigate above stake president - I don't.  (Perhaps I'm projecting my own ignorance. ::shrug::)  I guess I'd try google and see where it got me, but the Church doesn't make it simple to find this information (say in LDS Tools, or on LDS.org).  (I presume this is because the need is rare and the chance of abuse outweighs the difficulty imposed by obscurity.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Someone I'm close to had an issue with his mission president being dishonest, in sort of a spectacular way. This young man told adult missionary couples what was going on, and was chastised for his "interference" in things that "weren't his business". His mission president sent him home, at which point he contacted a General Authority and, eventually, after quite a while, the mission president was found out and removed. Obviously, this was a highly unusual situation, as much as or more than if it were a stake president. But it illustrates the wisdom of handling such an out-of-the-ordinary complaint in an out-of-the-ordinary way.

I disagree, while in the end the MP was dealt with, it would have gone better for the missionary if he took his concerns to the proper authority.  He was in fact wrong to go talk about this to other missionaries (other than perhaps his DL or ZL or AP), even if they were senior missionaries.  Doing that makes him a person who is (intentionally or not) harming the mission in his own way.  It would be like the OP spreading the woman's story to the members of the Stake.  A MP has a Bishop and a SP, he has counselors and an Area President he report to. Everybody who serves in the church does so with a priesthood leader who presides over them and to whom they are accountable.  If there is a problem you send it up the line, not across to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

Pfff.  I suspect even the majority of members don't know how to navigate above stake president - I don't.

You go to your Bishop and the Bishop who gets the SP's Bishop to interview the SP on the matter and then that Bishop goes to the AP after that if that is what is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

I disagree, while in the end the MP was dealt with, it would have gone better for the missionary if he took his concerns to the proper authority.  He was in fact wrong to go talk about this to other missionaries (other than perhaps his DL or ZL or AP), even if they were senior missionaries.  Doing that makes him a person who is (intentionally or not) harming the mission in his own way.  It would be like the OP spreading the woman's story to the members of the Stake.  A MP has a Bishop and a SP, he has counselors and an Area President he report to. Everybody who serves in the church does so with a priesthood leader who presides over them and to whom they are accountable.  If there is a problem you send it up the line, not across to others.

You are ignoring reality. He did indeed tell his zone leaders and the APs, but they were involved in the scam and told him to shut up. So he talked to the couple missionaries in his area, figuring a middle-aged adult would know what to do. They shut him down. He was in freaking Zimbabwe, LDM. What exactly do you think he should have done? Swum to Salt Lake City?

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

You are ignoring reality. He did indeed tell his zone leaders and the APs, but they were involved in the scam and told him to shut up. So he talked to the couple missionaries in his area, figuring a middle-aged adult would know what to do. They shut him down. He was in freaking Zimbabwe, LDM. What exactly do you think he should have done? Swum to Salt Lake City?

Written a letter to the AP or tell the next GA to come to the mission he had something he needed to talk privately about, do whatever he could to get the information to the proper authority and not spread it around to others.  Missionaries get lots of chances to meet apostles and area authorities and shake their hand.  His contacting a GA is what got this moving toward being fixed.  It's a shame that didn't happen while he was still in the field.  It's perfectly understandable that he went to a missionary couple, but it wasn't the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2018 at 4:06 PM, Vort said:

Mostly I'm reacting to the thought of a non-Latter-day Saint trying to navigate the Church's Priesthood structure to try to figure out where to file a complaint. In such a bizarre case, I don't think saying "You need to go talk to your bishop" is required, or perhaps even prudent.

Indeed...  Per the OP this is a non-member.. (and quite possibly the OP is a non-member as well because they make no claims to such)

Ideally this woman could come forth to any Bishop and present her evidence and then the Church's internal processes would handle the rest.  However it does not seem likely that she will.  The OP trying to do the same is unlikely to be successful because they have no proof, thus they would be dependent on the Lord revealing or the Stake President Confessing.

However outside of church channels there is another method.  Go to the Stake President Wife.  It is hard to predict how she will respond.  But she is a invested party with Stewardship which means she can get revelation on her marriage, and two she will have investigative resources in her husbands personal life that the church just does not have.  While we can't predict her actions if she becomes convinced that said affair is happening she has all kinds of resources to handle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:12 PM, Kourt said:

My best friend just confided in me and told me she's been having a relationship with man who just found out is a stake president and a employee of the church he has been pressuring her for months to record video of herself in a sexual nature and he also sends inappropriate videos and pics of himself. She's feels like he took advantage of her. What should she do

She should discontinue the relationship and tell the guy in no uncertain terms (preferably written) to stop the harassment.  If he continues his behavior, call the cops or try a restraining order. This would apply to anyone.  If she is a minor, she should call the police.  Other than that, since this relationship is not work or ecclesiastically related, she should do nothing else.

If she really wants to be vindictive, tell the guy's wife.<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share