DiscussMormonism.com

Megachurch leader in mega-sized sex scandal

The archbishop, his brother and the church are being sued by former church employee Mona Brewer, who says Earl Paulk manipulated her into an affair from 1989 to 2003 by telling her it was her only path to salvation. Earl Paulk admitted to the affair in front of the church last January.

Many accuse Joseph Smith of doing more or less the same thing. I don't know if there are nay lawyers here, but is what was done actually illegal, or is it merely reprehensible and therefore only suitable for suing (tort law or something like that)? If illegal, does that eat into the apologetic excuse that Joseph was good to go with that sort of thing (assuming he actually did do something similar) because God commanded it? I'm thinking about that part where God tells us that if we obey His laws we have no need to break the laws of the land.

asbestosman wrote:Megachurch leader in mega-sized sex scandal

The archbishop, his brother and the church are being sued by former church employee Mona Brewer, who says Earl Paulk manipulated her into an affair from 1989 to 2003 by telling her it was her only path to salvation. Earl Paulk admitted to the affair in front of the church last January.

Many accuse Joseph Smith of doing more or less the same thing. I don't know if there are nay lawyers here, but is what was done actually illegal, or is it merely reprehensible and therefore only suitable for suing (tort law or something like that)? If illegal, does that eat into the apologetic excuse that Joseph was good to go with that sort of thing (assuming he actually did do something similar) because God commanded it? I'm thinking about that part where God tells us that if we obey His laws we have no need to break the laws of the land.

False advertising, emotionally driven Rape, manipulation....hmm what else?

If the woman staffer he had an affair with was of legal age, then she consented to the affair and I don't think there can be any kind of criminal charge.

As for a tort, in order to have a tort, you'd have to have a legally recognizable duty that was violated, a harm, evidence that the breach of duty caused the harm, and evidence that but for that breach of the duty, the harm would not have been done. I don't think a tort could stand on any of those grounds, much less all of them. Telling her it was her only path to salvation involves a question of religious belief, and the court would be unable to take up the question of whether or not it really was necessary for her salvation. They maybe could get him if he admitted that he lied when he told her it was necessary for her salvation, but all he has to do is testify that in fact he did believe it, and it's protected.

The difference between this archbishop and his staffer, and Warren Jeffs and the female victim in his case, is that Jeffs' victim was underage, so there was the issue of an actual crime having been committed under his inducement.

As far as Joseph Smith is concerned, assuming that the women and girls were of legal age (I don't know whether they all were or not, for instance, was a 14-year old of age legally to consent in Illinoise in the 1840s?), then he could be gotten for bigamy, but not for the manipulation. If they consented upon religious grounds, the court couldn't touch it.

Other than the bigamy angle, I think Joseph Smith's conduct was despicable, but probably not something you could obtain redress for from a court. I should exclude from that any possible slandering or libeling of a woman who had rejected his propositions. Joseph Smith surely was a major asshole to his wife, and to several dozen other women whom he induced to enter into sham, extralegal secret marriages with him, but he probably was safe from the law in most of those cases at least, and maybe all of them.

Sethbag wrote: (I don't know whether they all were or not, for instance, was a 14-year old of age legally to consent in Illinoise in the 1840s?)

The father signed off on the deal, so the legality of the 14 year old's consent was not an issue.

harmony wrote:

Sethbag wrote: (I don't know whether they all were or not, for instance, was a 14-year old of age legally to consent in Illinoise in the 1840s?)

The father signed off on the deal, so the legality of the 14 year old's consent was not an issue.

Only if either the law of the state says a 14 year old can marry with parental consent, or else the age of consent to sexual intercourse was as low as 14.

Do you think he will use Joseph's bargain with Heber Kimball as a precedence for such salvation?

moksha wrote:Do you think he will use Joseph's bargain with Heber Kimball as a precedence for such salvation?

He who? I don't understand your question, Moksha.

From the article:

In 1992, a church member claimed she was pressured into a sexual relationship with Don Paulk. Other women also claimed they had been coerced into sex with Earl Paulk and other members of the church's administration.

Wow--a religious leader coercing women into sex with both himself and other members of his church's administration?

I wonder how the MA&Dites would react to such a concept.

harmony wrote:

moksha wrote:Do you think he will use Joseph's bargain with Heber Kimball as a precedence for such salvation?

He who? I don't understand your question, Moksha.

The fellow whom this thread is about. It was a stupid question on my part anyway.

Well, apparantly the woman believed it was her shot at salvation....and now she doesn't. How does she know she wasn't right the first time........

And the gates of hell open wide to receive her....MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..........okay, I need to find some way to entertain myself....and soon.

Spike sums up what I think of people who get into these situations: http://youtube.com/watch?v=cmEQx2HuDvE

"I have half a mind to kill you myself, you half-wit."