Desnews KNEW about the Garn hush money but did not report it

[_Polygamy-Porter]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7000 ... story.html

Hmmm, so you are saying that in 1992, a newspaper which is owned by the Mormon church HAD information about the hush money being paid out by a rich Mormon politician to Maher, but decided not to report this news?

I wonder why.

What if this Garn fellow were say, oh I dunno, a CATHOLIC?

[_Yoda]

Yeah, I read that, too, Port.

It's too bad the Trib didn't have the story. It's owned by the Church now, but I don't think it was then.

[_dblagent007]

The Tribune's latest article added the new wrinkle that the hush money deal was negotiated with the help of the victim's Lds bishop. It also said the woman sent a letter to Thomas Monson a few years ago explaining the whole thing. This is probably going to get even worse for the church as more details emerge.

[_Fiannan]

Oh please -- he did not break any laws at all! He did not photopraph her or lay a hand on her. The guy was just dumb for paying hush money -- he should have come out and told the truth and that would have been it.

If this sort of thing happened in Oregon or California I doubt it would be a big issue. Hello Utah, they were naked, big freaken deal. How many men and women in politics today in Utah have sat in the hot springs at Diamond Fork when some high school or BYU students have come down and gotten naked in the pools? How many elected officials in the USA have visited nudist resorts and been in the hot tub or pool when young women were also in there with them? Bet the numbers would be surprising.

[_Nimrod]

Oh please -- he did not break any laws at all! He did not photopraph her or lay a hand on her. The guy was just dumb for paying hush money -- he should have come out and told the truth and that would have been it.

He 'doth pay too much, methinks" to be innocent.

Hush money negotiated with the help of the victim's LDS bishop.

TSM knew.

LDS Inc's "Deseret News" (boy, there's a title laden with multiple meanings) knew this and did not report it.

All is well in Zion, rejoice, hallelujah!

[_Uncle Dale]

Oh please -- he did not break any laws at all!
...

Is THAT why he remained a recommend-carrying LDS high priest
for all of those years -- with no reprimand from Priesthood
superiors (who have the abiding presence of the Holy Ghost and
the gift of spiritual discernment)?

If so, then any modern adult Mormon elder can call over his minor
next-door-neighbor and gaze upon her spread legs in the bath-tub.
If that underage girl later complains, the Mormon elder can simply
give her $150,000 and President Monson will smile -- and make sure
that his Church's newspaper never reports the incident.

But the lady says Elder Garn did indeed touch her minor body. (And
he says nary a handshake ever passed between them) -- he's still
in the Church, so he must be telling the truth and she (apostate) lying.

Smile on, President Monson -- we now know how to take care of
those "little factory" problems -- (when the wife is away at RS meeting).

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

Oh please -- he did not break any laws at all! He did not photopraph her or lay a hand on her.
...

Let me get this straight.

If I'm a Mormon elder, and I slip into Pete's Porn Shop, and buy a
stack of provocative nude photos of my 15-year-old female neighbor,
I'm guilty of breaking the State of Utah child-pornography laws.

But, if I'm a Mormon elder who entices that same 15-year-old to
come over to my house, perform a striptease, and show off her
private parts in my bathtub, I'm a candidate for eternal progression?

The CAMERA is the SIN in this LDS doctrinal illustration?

UD

[_Inconceivable]

Oh please -- he did not break any laws at all! He did not photopraph her or lay a hand on her. The guy was just dumb for paying hush money -- he should have come out and told the truth and that would have been it.

Are you nuts, Fiannan?

It's called attempted sexual misconduct with A MINOR. It's a legal term for a reason. This guy is a bishop of a college ward (or was one 2 years ago).

ATTEMPTED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH A MINOR

The guy took her to lunch, he took her shopping, he worked late with her. This is legal albeit completely INAPPROPRIATE.

But he committed a FELONY when HE UNDRESSED in FRONT of HER. NAKED alone WITH a 15 YEAR OLD GIRL is a felony that requires incarceration.

I can see how a young girl could be deeply affected by her bosse's advances. He was in a position of authority as her Sunday School teacher a few years earlier as well.

Her story is different than his? Who got caught lying? The bishop did.

And for confessing to his family at the time of his filandering? He has 6 kids. Half weren't even born at the time. The rest were toddlers.

What's the matter with you Fiannan?

It will take a few days for this to set in. I can see a load of representatives appologizing for standing to support an alledged child molestor. It would be political suicide for them even if they believed his lame ass damage control story.

[_Uncle Dale]

... he's still in the Church, so he must be telling the truth and
she (apostate) lying.
...

But let me ask the "more experienced" posters here a question.

If Elder Garn denounced the church and turned atheist -- and
the lady repented and was re-baptized, would anybody THEN
believe her story, that he groped her naked body?

Or, in Utah, is the man always right, in these "he-said/she-said"
incest/pornography/molesting/fornication/spiritual wifery incidents?

"After discussing this matter with my family, I have decided that it is in the best interests of them, my colleagues and the people of Utah. As you know, it is a great honor to serve in the State Legislature. In fact, it has been one of the greatest honors of my life. I am proud of what I accomplished. I am proud to have worked with so many wonderful and talented public servants. I wish to thank those who entrusted me with this responsibility.

But he evidently resigns from none of his Church callings.
Is this typical amongst these "proud" high priests?


UD

[_harmony]

[quote from the article]the woman was kind of a flake[/quote]

The woman was kind of a flake? What the hell? THE WOMAN WAS KIND OF A FLAKE????

What kind of reason is that to not run a story about a man running for public office? Should the Washington or New York papers not run the story about Monica Lewinsky because she was kind of a FLAKE?

Goodnightshirt! That is insane! And now they're scrambling to cover their butts? And they're going to get away with it!