The LDS church wants journalism to reform

[drumdude]

The LDS church response leaves out the details of the first police interview of Bishop Herrod.

Q Did Bishop Herrod know of any actual misconduct between Paul Adams and his children?

A He did.

Q Did Bishop Herrod consider calling the police?

A He did not.

Q. Did Bishop Herrod understand that Leizza Adams was successful thereafter in keeping her kids away from him?

A. He believes that he was not. The counseling sessions continued with Paul Adams, to which Paul continued to explain that he was sexually assaulting his oldest daughter, M-1.

Q. And did Bishop Herrod bring Leizza Adams in
again?

A. Yes. He didn't have a count but he said there were numerous times that he brought her in.

Q. so it wasn't just one time Leizza Adams heard this?

A. No. And he couldn't tell me the count. He said it was over numerous counseling sessions.

Q. Did Bishop Herrod say how long, the amount of time these counseling sessions transpired with Paul Adams where he would bring Leizza in?

A. As far as duration of the counseling session of minutes or

Q. NO.

A. -- over years?

Q. Yes.

A. It was over years. He said that when he left the Bisbee ward in 2012 he turned over the situation to the next bishop coming in, who I believe is Kim Mauzy, Bishop Kim Mauzy, who started in 2012 and was there through 2017.

Q. Okay. Did Bishop Herrod do anything after he was learning of all the these incidents with M-1 and Paul Adams?

A. Bishop Herrod explained to me that he consulted, as he referred to it -- and I mean no disrespect he called Mormon headquarters in salt Lake City, Utah, and asked for legal advice as to what to do. The church conveyed that he needs to continue counseling sessions, and that there's no duty to report to authorities due to the clergy-penitent privilege.

Q, So Bishop Herrod, in bringing Leizza Adams back into the room each time, did he explain to you what he was hoping to accomplish?

A. He was hoping that Leizza Adams would fix the situation, that Leizza Adams would leave the house with the children, thus not letting them being the victim of sexual assault, continued sexual assault.

Years after Bishop Herrod gave this testimony to agent Edwards, he apparently changed his story. That changed story is what the LDS article hinges on.


Primary source documents here:

https://mormonr.org/qnas/tpo8C/failure_ ... ee_arizona

[huckelberry]

drumdude, I can see that your information shows that the church article may at best be brushing aside some information. I think Marcus was reacting to some wording in the article which smelled of avoidance of conflicting or damaging information or details.

[PseudoPaul]

This is dishonest and disgusting. After helping a child rapist evade the law, they now blame the press for reporting on it.

[Kishkumen]

This is dishonest and disgusting. After helping a child rapist evade the law, they now blame the press for reporting on it.

Indeed. So enraging.

[Dr Exiled]

Commenters over at Sic et Non don't want to believe that their church would advise through their lawyers to do nothing other than continue hoping that counseling would work with this unrepentant monster. Well, the two bishops continued to meet with this predator for years. Why do you think that was? It was supposedly a one time occurrence the bishops claim, yet they continued to meet with the predator. Why? Maybe because the abuse was ongoing? Additionally, I find it interesting that Kirton McConckie routinely deletes, daily, the hotline files. However, I'm sure that if we had those files, it would show how amazing the church and its lawyers are.

Also, the wife (Leizza Adams) plead guilty to not protecting her children, serving two years. She moved to Illinois where her LDS bishop encouraged her to write down her thoughts about what occurred in AZ. Not surprising, the LDS church, the one and only (D&C 1:30), is now fighting to keep the thumb drive containing her thoughts secret. Why do you think that is so? The church is trying to hide behind the priest penitent privilege. However, that can be waived by the member, Leizza Adams at any time. I wonder how much pressure she is facing right now from the one and only? https://arizonadailyindependent.com/202 ... -children/

Here is the case: https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/public ... eSupport=1

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

When I was stationed in AZ I had a mid-twenties SSG confess to raping his step-daughter to his wife. Both were very religious, Born Again types, and the police were immediately called by the wife. Their pastor was on scene that night ministering to the family along with all the resources we could muster through the Army. No one thought twice to preserve either that church’s reputation nor the Army’s. It was a huge effort. We moved the wife and her five kids out of their rental into a guess cabin onto our installation, and synced them up to every possible service we could find. She was allowed to stay on base housing until her life could be managed, which was around a year.

Throughout the ordeal we visited the SSG every month or so because he was still on the books as being enlisted. He expressed regret for his deeds and the dishonor he brought on the Army. Every Christmas I send him a card and we end up having a quick catch up. He’s alive and very religious … in jail where he ought to be. He knows he’s paying for his misdeeds, and he’s part of a ministry in jail. Where he belongs. In jail. Period.

This guy had a lot of potential, too. I helped him put together a Warrant Officer packet, and wrote him one of the best recommendation letters of my career.

So, why did those Mormon men cover for another Mormon man who had, was, and would rape a small child and then a baby?

The answer is because they’re immoral monsters. Period. All of them. They could’ve saved that baby from being raped and prevented that Mormon man’s sexual assaults from being recorded and uploaded to the web.

But they aided and abetted that crime.

If you’re still a member of that organization after watching this unfold then you’re propping this evil up. You have a choice to make. Be a part of this evil or not. If you choose to remain, well, there you are. You’ve chosen the side of evil.

- Doc

[drumdude]

It is clear from some of the documentation that the excommunication was done under the authority of the second Bishop, not the Stake President. This means the abuser was likely unendowed, and possibly not a MP holder. We also know that the abuser "rarely" attended Church, though the article says that the "Adams family was deeply involved in the Mormon community", giving the false impression that this included him.

Excellent points

He wasn’t even really a Mormon. Even though he confessed the most terrible crime in his life to a Mormon church leader.

The rationalizing here is impressive.

[sock puppet]

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-f ... -evidence/

We should still expect better from truth-seeking institutions. In my interview with Jon Haidt earlier this summer, he argued that the “spectacular failure of the late 2010s” was how leaders of what he called “our knowledge-centered institutions,” like newspapers and universities, have “failed to stand up for the mission of their institutions.”

So says the morality-peddling institution trying to deflect from its own lapses, such as it's leaders and practices covering up sexual abuse of children. The LDS church's spectacular failures do not seem to be concentrated in just a few years, such as the late 2010s. The 'morality-centered institution', i.e., LDS church, has failed to stand up for the mission of its instituion.

[Doctor Steuss]

I imagine anyone who experiences intense emotional distress from topics like these is avoiding the thread by this point. But, just in case.




**************** STRONG TRIGGER WARNING ****************


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, why did those Mormon men cover for another Mormon man who had, was, and would rape a small child and then a baby?

I think your word choice here is extremely important. In the coverage, and conversations, the verbiage is usually "sexual abuse," or "sexual assault" or "molestation." What he did, literally, was rape his child. He raped her, repeatedly. He recorded himself raping her, and shared those recordings with other people. He forcefully tried, repeatedly, to rape the baby, but ultimately couldn't, because they were (in his words) "too small." He took pictures of his attempts to rape his baby, and shared them with others.

The transcripts are vile. I wish I hadn't read as much as I did. There's going to be shadows over my heart for god-knows-how-long. It's maddening to think that any human could possibly hear even a fraction of a confession of what this man had done, and was doing, and think "hey, I better call this number for advice." It's infuriating to think that an organization, maintaining such a helpline wouldn't do all in their power to get law enforcement involved, and get those children out of that home immediately. Break down the doors, kidnap the kids, and consequences be damned.

That the current reaction from the Church and its acolytes is damage control, instead of shared outrage and horror speak volumes.

Focusing on what the journalists have gotten "wrong" instead of focusing on the ACTUAL WRONGS.

Garbage human beings. Absolute garbage.

[Marcus]

I imagine anyone who experiences intense emotional distress from topics like these is avoiding the thread by this point. But, just in case.




**************** STRONG TRIGGER WARNING ****************


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, why did those Mormon men cover for another Mormon man who had, was, and would rape a small child and then a baby?

I think your word choice here is extremely important. In the coverage, and conversations, the verbiage is usually "sexual abuse," or "sexual assault" or "molestation." What he did, literally, was rape his child. He raped her, repeatedly. He recorded himself raping her, and shared those recordings with other people. He forcefully tried, repeatedly, to rape the baby, but ultimately couldn't, because they were (in his words) "too small." He took pictures of his attempts to rape his baby, and shared them with others.

The transcripts are vile. I wish I hadn't read as much as I did. There's going to be shadows over my heart for god-knows-how-long. It's maddening to think that any human could possibly hear even a fraction of a confession of what this man had done, and was doing, and think "hey, I better call this number for advice." It's infuriating to think that an organization, maintaining such a helpline wouldn't do all in their power to get law enforcement involved, and get those children out of that home immediately. Break down the doors, kidnap the kids, and consequences be damned.

That the current reaction from the Church and its acolytes is damage control, instead of shared outrage and horror speak volumes.

Focusing on what the journalists have gotten "wrong" instead of focusing on the ACTUAL WRONGS.

Garbage human beings. Absolute garbage.

wow. it just gets worse and worse.

according to the article in the OP, the first problem with the AP report was that the "abuse" (noting your language comment) was stated in present tense, when the confession to the bishop was actually in the past tense. CURRENT vs. PAST was what journalists got "wrong."

after reading your post above, i cannot even imagine what it takes to pick out the current vs. past (technical, and meaningless in terms of behavior) distinction, when it was so obviously an ongoing problem.

it is absolutely clear the intent of the author of the article linked in the OP is to protect the lds church, nothing more. i'm sure he was asked to write it, and i'm sure he'll eventually regret it.