Abuse Allegation Against Members Of Nelson Family


lostinwater
 Share

Recommended Posts

From the article:

Quote

"Victims need to be listened and heard and have a voice. I think now there’s a chance some members of the Mormon community will believe us. I’m certain there’s some who will not because of who the defendants are," said a woman known in the lawsuit as "Jane Doe 2," who alleges she was sexually abused as a child.

I feel like this part is fairly telling about the true motives here. What does it matter what members of the church think if the point is to actually get some form of justice or damage reparations. This strikes me as simply saying, "The climate wasn't right in the 80's when this was investigated and found baseless, but now in 2018 when every sexual allegation is believed first and the alleged are automatically monsters by virtue of saying so, perhaps we can successfully give the church a black eye and some members will fall away."

Quote

The lawsuit does not name the LDS Church itself nor anyone else. Vernon told FOX 13 he reserved the right to amend the lawsuit later to include others. That could include LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson.

"We believe there will be additional evidence to show this person along with other people worked in tandem with the defendants to basically cover up the crime of the sexual assaults, the sexual abuse," Vernon said.

Vernon has specialized in clergy abuse lawsuits. Most recently, he has represented McKenna Denson in her high profile lawsuit against the LDS Church alleging rape in the 1980s at the Missionary Training Center. He has also sued the LDS Church over allegations of sexual abuse of Native American children and Boy Scouts.

This part strengthens the thought. Did this lawyer seek them out? It sounds like he's an ambulance chaser after anything to attack the church with. I also fail to see how President Nelson could be found guilty of wrong-doing. When three law enforcement agencies review a case and all decide there is nothing to see, why would the church think they should look further?

As always, if people are found to be in the wrong then we should of course hold them accountable. But... really... is anyone else just finding this whole sexual abuse accusation thing to be getting old? It's a great weapon because the alleged perpetrator loses either way. What protection exists for the falsely accused? I'd hate to see deterrants to reporting crimes, but seriously, I'm finding there are too many of these that seem to have political/social agendas rather than actually seeking justice. The timing seems to always be right before an election, or in this case after President Nelson took the leading mortal position in the church. It just starts to seem fishy. Not all white males with conservative christian values born before 1990 are sexual predators.

3 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Not sure what to say about this one.  If it happened, it's terrible, if it didn't happen, it's also terrible.

https://fox13now.com/2018/10/03/lawsuit-alleging-sex-abuse-cover-up-filed-against-family-of-lds-church-president/

 

You're right - tragic either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"These allegations were investigated in the 1980s by three different law enforcement agencies who found no evidence of any child sex abuse ring in Bountiful and filed no charges against my clients," 

Quote

"Protecting and nurturing children is important to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we handle issues of this nature with the utmost seriousness. These allegations of interference or coverup are baseless and offensive. Law enforcement investigated this matter in the 1980s and took no action against the Church or its leaders. We will continue to act responsibly and appropriately in addressing these matters," the church said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Not sure what to say about this one.  If it happened, it's terrible, if it didn't happen, it's also terrible.

And of course, THERE'S A FIFTY PERCENT CHANCE THAT IT HAPPENED. Because either it did happen, or it didn't. Fifty percent. Simple math.

All allegations of any sort should be approached with the frightening knowledge that it's a coin toss whether or not the thing actually took place. Forcible rape? Alien invasion? Nazis in the basement? Fifty-fifty.

And that's every day. This happened over thirty years ago! Why, it's practically a certainty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, no, anatess.  I have a former bishop who did time for molesting a child (after he was bishop).  George P. Lee of the seventy molested a young girl.  A decade plus back, an online sting operation in Idaho grabbed Stake President Clayton R. Hildreth who had flown in from another state, box of lingerie in hand, hoping to hook up with someone he thought was a 15 yr old girl.  

The general notion is offensive.  We hate thinking about such things, and most good people have a bit of hardwiring in them that just makes it hard to believe that anyone could do such things to a child, much less respected folks from good families.  But humans are humans - and just because someone is the husband of a daughter of the president of the church, doesn't make him not human.

"That sort of thing just doesn't happen with this group of people" - that's a lie spawned in the pit of hell, and it belongs in the 1980's where it started to die off.  I am not saying the current news story is true.  I'm saying it is wrong to just write it off as false because we like Pres. Nelson and assume his family to be immune to such things.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, no, anatess.  I have a former bishop who did time for molesting a child (after he was bishop).  George P. Lee of the seventy molested a young girl.  A few years back, an online sting operation in Idaho grabbed Stake President Clayton R. Hildreth who had flown in from another state, box of lingerie in hand, hoping to hook up with someone he thought was a 15 yr old girl.  

The general notion is offensive.  We hate thinking about such things, and most good people have a bit of hardwiring in them that just makes it hard to believe that anyone could do such things to a child, much less respected folks from good families.  But humans are humans - and just because someone is the husband of a daughter of the president of the church, doesn't make him not human.

"That sort of thing just doesn't happen with this group of people" - that's a lie spawned in the pit of hell, and it belongs in the 1980's where it started to die off.  I am not saying the current news story is true.  I'm saying it is wrong to just write it off as false because we like Pres. Nelson and assume his family to be immune to such things.

 

Exactly!!

Heck, I hold no one on a pedestal. Humans are humans and many do stupid and illegal stuff, yes even members of the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, no, anatess.

"That sort of thing just doesn't happen with this group of people" - that's a lie spawned in the pit of hell, and it belongs in the 1980's where it started to die off.  I am not saying the current news story is true.  I'm saying it is wrong to just write it off as false because we like Pres. Nelson and assume his family to be immune to such things.

Yeah, NO @NeuroTypical

YES @anatess2  When it comes to President Nelsen - God would not have allowed a child molester to become the living prophet of His church!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with all these scenarios, if someone is "guilty" of said crime, then I hope the truth comes to light. If someone is not "guiltly" -- like Kavanaugh -- he will be guilty by many through the court of public opinion.

I am not sure what they think will come to light if in the 80s, from what has been shared, there was no evidence then.

If there was some sad cover up and it doesn't come to light no one is going to escape final judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm saying it is wrong to just write it off as false because we like Pres. Nelson and assume his family to be immune to such things.

I think the more likely reason we'd be writing it off is more related to the current "#meToo" climate we live in.

If the accusation came out of nowhere, reasonably minded people would stand back and say, "we'll see". When it's on the heels of all the other wolf-crying publicity stunt nonsense going on...just seems awfully convenient.

Of course, reasonably, we still sit back and say, "we'll see." But on the side we also say, "yeah, right."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, no, anatess.  I have a former bishop who did time for molesting a child (after he was bishop).  George P. Lee of the seventy molested a young girl.  A decade plus back, an online sting operation in Idaho grabbed Stake President Clayton R. Hildreth who had flown in from another state, box of lingerie in hand, hoping to hook up with someone he thought was a 15 yr old girl.  

The general notion is offensive.  We hate thinking about such things, and most good people have a bit of hardwiring in them that just makes it hard to believe that anyone could do such things to a child, much less respected folks from good families.  But humans are humans - and just because someone is the husband of a daughter of the president of the church, doesn't make him not human.

"That sort of thing just doesn't happen with this group of people" - that's a lie spawned in the pit of hell, and it belongs in the 1980's where it started to die off.  I am not saying the current news story is true.  I'm saying it is wrong to just write it off as false because we like Pres. Nelson and assume his family to be immune to such things.

 

You grow up a lot when you realize that someone can believe the same things you do and still be a scumbag. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Quote

"Protecting and nurturing children is important to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we handle issues of this nature with the utmost seriousness. These allegations of interference or coverup are baseless and offensive. Law enforcement investigated this matter in the 1980s and took no action against the Church or its leaders. We will continue to act responsibly and appropriately in addressing these matters," the church said.

 

You've already mentioned this before, but it bears repeating for our younger readers. In the late 80's to mid 90's sex abuse scandals came to the forefront of media attention. The Catholic Church was front and center, but the Church got caught in the crosshairs also. Policies were updated or clarified, trainings (including General Conference) used the strongest wording to denounce all forms of abuse and reminded bishops to include women and their opinions in leadership councils. (this context is also worth keeping in mind with the Catholic scandals rising again. @anatess2 has detailed some of the changes that the Vatican made as a result of this period. New (or old) allegations making claims of this era need to be kept in this context - that the accusations are being leveled against a church 30-years ago, not the current one).

Something else young folk might not remember is the fear that satanism was on the rise. Dungeons and Dragons was going to claim our youth for the devil, even Lord of the Rings with it's wizards was satan-lite (what, we didn't have Harry Potter to punch yet. Don't worry it got punched hard when it came on the scene a decade later). Counter-cult ministries spoke out against anything and everything occult. At the cross-roads of these two controversies was the satanic sex ring. Daycares and other trusted groups were subjecting our youngest children to sexual rituals for satan. When it all came out in the wash, it turned out that most, if not all, of these abuse allegations were actually "implanted memories". @Just_A_Guy has mentioned in the past about the training child psychologists receive who specialize in abuse and trauma. This is specifically because during this period children and adults were encouraged to bring to light repressed memories, and in a number of cases what came to light was variations of the prompts from the psychologist.

The defendants' arguments already included in the article points out that the police already looked into this matter in the 80's, and also traces the accusation to the faulty practice of psychologically implanting memories. The motion to dismiss (cited in full at the end of the article) also frames the allegation to the satanic sex ring scare from that period.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, no, anatess.  I have a former bishop who did time for molesting a child (after he was bishop).  George P. Lee of the seventy molested a young girl.  A decade plus back, an online sting operation in Idaho grabbed Stake President Clayton R. Hildreth who had flown in from another state, box of lingerie in hand, hoping to hook up with someone he thought was a 15 yr old girl.  

The general notion is offensive.  We hate thinking about such things, and most good people have a bit of hardwiring in them that just makes it hard to believe that anyone could do such things to a child, much less respected folks from good families.  But humans are humans - and just because someone is the husband of a daughter of the president of the church, doesn't make him not human.

"That sort of thing just doesn't happen with this group of people" - that's a lie spawned in the pit of hell, and it belongs in the 1980's where it started to die off.  I am not saying the current news story is true.  I'm saying it is wrong to just write it off as false because we like Pres. Nelson and assume his family to be immune to such things.

 

No, NeuroTypical, neither your former bishop nor George P. Lee is President Nelson's son-in-law.  And notice - how they frame it... Nelson family.  Ya think the issue here is hiding sexual assault?  No sir.  The issue here is a blatant smear campaign of good people - not your bishop, not George Lee not anybody else.  So go ahead.  Defend THAT.

Like I said... Graham wants his Kavanaugh back and Kavanaugh wants his Pope back.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The issue here is a blatant smear campaign of good people

Well, smear campaign of people and also institutions.  Hamper the Republicans at all costs.  Make the church look bad.  Attack the family.  Absolutely it's not just possible, but likely, that's what is behind this news story.  I don't think we have a disagreement there.

It's just that I bear record of crying people who have been devastated when they were told "He'd never do something like that - he was an eagle scout and a missionary - you're making it up."  It happens.  Like, mothers tell this to their daughters.  Gets me worked up anytime I think I see the notion.  

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's just that I bear record of crying people who have been devastated when they were told "He'd never do something like that - he was an eagle scout and a missionary - you're making it up."  It happens.  Like, mothers tell this to their daughters.  Gets me worked up anytime I think I see the notion.  

No argument there either.  But, as the Duke LaCrosse team can testify - it also happens the other way around.  Innocent people who have not-so-stellar reputations get falsely accused because it's easy to make the charges stick.

Neither of these is what we're talking about.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

@lostinwater, I see you're confused.  I'm not sure if you're LDS, but for us Mormons there's no "if it happened".  It's like saying, "Mother Theresa abused children".  The idea is so preposterous that even considering that it happened offends the senses.

Thanks.  

That's a fair point.  i guess my "person X would never do Y" bridge has been burned - especially when it comes to people who say they are prophets.  But i've perhaps been reading too many books on cults recently.  But even that being the case, i tried to go out of my way to say something that meant basically nothing.  But hearing something neutral said about something that appears obvious probably feels like something that wasn't neutral at all.  Definitely understandable.

Beyond that, from what i've read - on sources i'm unable to mention here - many people who otherwise have very little kind to say about TCOJCOLDS are saying that this is extremely unlikely - based on their personal interactions with the Miles'.  That would be my preferred outcome - and i hope the preferred outcome of everyone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Can someone summarize for me? I tried to read the allegation in the news report and got very confused about who did what (supposedly). Who got divorced and then did it again and then committed suicide and who were the abused...or something like that? 

My understanding is that children (who are now adults) were sexually assaulted by their father known as the Perpetrator. The children told their mother and they eventually divorced, Perpetrator eventually remarried and sexually assaulted his step-children. Perpetrator eventually took his own life. The children of Perpetrator are also saying that the Miles' were also involved in these sexual assaults (known as male and female defendants).

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was President Nelson mentioned in this article AT ALL?

The case doesn't deal with him.

That's a very odd way to go about things.  It seems sensationalistic and bringing up his name just to try to put an association there between him and such crimes.  Currently, unless they have a real connection to the case with him, it sounds VERY CLOSE to libel (unless it was a transcript of something they spoke in which case it would slander or both).  They are treading very close to the line, telling a familial connection with implication without actually saying he's part of the case (which brings up the question once again, why even mention him?).

On the case itself, sounds very tragic.

If children were abused I hope the perpetrator meets justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Maureen said:

My understanding is that children (who are now adults) were sexually assaulted by their father known as the Perpetrator. The children told their mother and they eventually divorced, Perpetrator eventually remarried and sexually assaulted his step-children. Perpetrator eventually took his own life. The children of Perpetrator are also saying that the Miles' were also involved in these sexual assaults (known as male and female defendants).

M.

Ok. Interesting this is in the news two days before General Conference. There is a method to the madness it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Why was President Nelson mentioned in this article AT ALL?

The case doesn't deal with him.

That's a very odd way to go about things.  It seems sensationalistic and bringing up his name just to try to put an association there between him and such crimes.  Currently, unless they have a real connection to the case with him, it sounds VERY CLOSE to libel (unless it was a transcript of something they spoke in which case it would slander or both).  They are treading very close to the line, telling a familial connection with implication without actually saying he's part of the case (which brings up the question once again, why even mention him?).

On the case itself, sounds very tragic.

If children were abused I hope the perpetrator meets justice.

Sounds like the main perp is gone from the earth. The others accused?  Just doesn't seem likely but I guess we'll see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the backlash against the “believe all accusers” trope, as exhibited in this thread, is a good thing to the extent that it pulls us away from “guilty until proven innocent” into “well, we’ll see” territory.  

I also suppose it’s a very good thing that no prophet, latter-day or ancient, has ever raised a kid who turned out to be a dirtbag (or married a dirtbag). 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
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