lawsuit, supposed blackmail attempt....

[_the road to hana]

"I have been badly treated. Send me money to sue the Church we all hate." Speaks for itself.

I missed those two sentences on their website. Could you direct me to them?

And I wasn't speaking to her case, but to the subsequent actions (asking for money) and poster responses, the most informed of which doubted that she has a case.

My own read of the paperwork is that the claim as it is currently presented probably won't go anywhere. That does not mean I don't believe she could be correct in her accusations, or that she is entitled to some remedy.

1. If she isn'tt trying to get revenge or rich, why didn't she go to the legal authorities?

Do you know she didn't?

2. Is she trying to "Beck" her father and the Church for trhe same reasons Beck did what she did?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you suggesting that if a person's father is high profile they are somehow exempt from prosecution and above the law, or that it would be completely impossible for them to be guilty of sexual abuse?

I'm unaware how the cases are related. It seems to me they aren't. You think that the plaintiff said to herself one day, "Gee, I think that Hugh Nibley's daughter is probably going to make a claim of abuse against her father a few years from now, so I think I'll get the jump on her and report my own?"

3. Does anybody believe in innocent until proven guilty anymore?

Absolutely. That includes ex-Mormons, who might or might not be "gullible."

Those who were in the second rank of those who were named in the suit agaisnt FAIR by the Tanners. None of the named parties, but those close in. And the amount was upwards of $40,000 based on their reports of fund raising, and the amont of billable hours which could (or should) have been billed on the basis of what the suit, its motions, filings, etc. would have demanded in lawyer time.

What does the one case have to do with the other?

NO, I don't not just automatically assume that if someone is claiming "abuse" their claim is without merit! But the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. And if it is "he said, she said" you want to know why a claim is made years and years later, is asking only for money, and if there are any other factors not related to the claim of abuse which are significant motivating factors.

It seems to me that when allegations of abuse are involved, particularly involving minors, that one needs to proceed cautiously. Certainly the accused should be "innocent until proven guilty," but allegations of abuse should never be taken lightly.

If I'm not mistaken, this is the same tightrope that other religious organizations, notably the Catholic Church, have been walking in recent years. Should they ignore all claims of abuse against clergy simply because they want to protect the clergy against spurious claims? Should they take all claims of abuse seriously in order to protect innocent victims, even if it means exposing scandal and possibly ruining lives?

My own read is that the LDS Church is in the same situation in cases like this. If the accused is a high-profile member of the LDS Church, as is the case in this instance, and has the potential of being guilty, wouldn't they prefer that the accusations all go away, rather than being exposed? Or is it more noble for the LDS Church to take the allegations seriously enough to possibly discipline the accused and/or remove them from leadership?

It's a quandary.

Elder Ballard would be involved with Christensen in business interests and positions within the LDS Church. If the plaintiff is correct in her claims, it certainly wouldn't be to their advantage for action to be taken.

I will say that when money enters the picture, the accuser has a pretty high hurdle to jump to make her claim in my opinion. "I just want justice. Oh, yes, and a million bucks."

Again, I would ask you, does that mean that those with money are less likely to be guilty of abuse? Or somehow exempt from it? Should the Catholic Church never be sued, even when allegations of abuse are well founded, simply because there is more money involved than might be the case with an individual?

I think it depends on what side of the coin you happen to be on in the coin-toss of life. If you or your daughter were abused by a church authority, I doubt you'd keep quiet. If you reported it to a bishop, and they turned against you, I doubt you'd keep quiet.

If the LDS Church knew that Christensen was guilty of the abuse, and continued to offer him positions of leadership and power, is that wrong in your view?

[_The Nehor]

Really? Someone who communes with deity wants proof of abuse but not of a vision?

Well, I am a fan of the concept of western justice with the ideal of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Accusations of abuse and other criminal allegations tend to deprive people of wealth and freedom.

In your communings with God, Nehor, what if God told you that the abuse had in fact happened?

Would you then support publicly the claim that it had happened? Would you believe that you know the abuse did in fact happened, because you received confirmation of that through revelation?

Yes, I would then believe it happened. I wouldn't publicly support it in a way to embarrass the victim (such as testifying in court that God told me they were right). However, yeah, I would do what I could to help. If God tells me something like that I can only assume that he has a way for me to help in the situation.

I should add that I do think claims of abuse should be investigated. I just don't believe them without reservation. I'm especially skeptical of remembrances decades after the fact.

[_GoodK]

"I have been badly treated. Send me money to sue the Church we all hate." Speaks for itself.

I missed those two sentences on their website. Could you direct me to them?

And I wasn't speaking to her case, but to the subsequent actions (asking for money) and poster responses, the most informed of which doubted that she has a case.

My own read of the paperwork is that the claim as it is currently presented probably won't go anywhere. That does not mean I don't believe she could be correct in her accusations, or that she is entitled to some remedy.

1. If she isn'tt trying to get revenge or rich, why didn't she go to the legal authorities?

Do you know she didn't?

2. Is she trying to "Beck" her father and the Church for trhe same reasons Beck did what she did?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you suggesting that if a person's father is high profile they are somehow exempt from prosecution and above the law, or that it would be completely impossible for them to be guilty of sexual abuse?

I'm unaware how the cases are related. It seems to me they aren't. You think that the plaintiff said to herself one day, "Gee, I think that Hugh Nibley's daughter is probably going to make a claim of abuse against her father a few years from now, so I think I'll get the jump on her and report my own?"

3. Does anybody believe in innocent until proven guilty anymore?

Absolutely. That includes ex-Mormons, who might or might not be "gullible."

Those who were in the second rank of those who were named in the suit agaisnt FAIR by the Tanners. None of the named parties, but those close in. And the amount was upwards of $40,000 based on their reports of fund raising, and the amont of billable hours which could (or should) have been billed on the basis of what the suit, its motions, filings, etc. would have demanded in lawyer time.

What does the one case have to do with the other?

NO, I don't not just automatically assume that if someone is claiming "abuse" their claim is without merit! But the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. And if it is "he said, she said" you want to know why a claim is made years and years later, is asking only for money, and if there are any other factors not related to the claim of abuse which are significant motivating factors.

It seems to me that when allegations of abuse are involved, particularly involving minors, that one needs to proceed cautiously. Certainly the accused should be "innocent until proven guilty," but allegations of abuse should never be taken lightly.

If I'm not mistaken, this is the same tightrope that other religious organizations, notably the Catholic Church, have been walking in recent years. Should they ignore all claims of abuse against clergy simply because they want to protect the clergy against spurious claims? Should they take all claims of abuse seriously in order to protect innocent victims, even if it means exposing scandal and possibly ruining lives?

My own read is that the LDS Church is in the same situation in cases like this. If the accused is a high-profile member of the LDS Church, as is the case in this instance, and has the potential of being guilty, wouldn't they prefer that the accusations all go away, rather than being exposed? Or is it more noble for the LDS Church to take the allegations seriously enough to possibly discipline the accused and/or remove them from leadership?

It's a quandary.

Elder Ballard would be involved with Christensen in business interests and positions within the LDS Church. If the plaintiff is correct in her claims, it certainly wouldn't be to their advantage for action to be taken.

I will say that when money enters the picture, the accuser has a pretty high hurdle to jump to make her claim in my opinion. "I just want justice. Oh, yes, and a million bucks."

Again, I would ask you, does that mean that those with money are less likely to be guilty of abuse? Or somehow exempt from it? Should the Catholic Church never be sued, even when allegations of abuse are well founded, simply because there is more money involved than might be the case with an individual?

I think it depends on what side of the coin you happen to be on in the coin-toss of life. If you or your daughter were abused by a church authority, I doubt you'd keep quiet. If you reported it to a bishop, and they turned against you, I doubt you'd keep quiet.

If the LDS Church knew that Christensen was guilty of the abuse, and continued to offer him positions of leadership and power, is that wrong in your view?

This reminds me of Nibley's daughter and the character assasination she suffered as a result of telling people her father molested her.
I wonder if we will start seeing more and more of these sort of instances.

[_the road to hana]

I'm especially skeptical of remembrances decades after the fact.

I'm not one who's experienced recall of repressed memories personally, but I can imagine that severe traumas in childhood can result in them. It also makes sense to me that victimized minors have difficulty either realizing they are being abused (particularly by people they are supposed to trust), or feeling comfortable reporting the same.

In the same vein, someone like the plaintiff I assume is taught, like I was, that confiding in clergy was appropriate. If she told an uncle (as she claims), and then clergy (as she claims), and still nothing was done, what is the point of children being told they should report incidences of abuse?

How differently do you think her claims would have been regarded had she made them as a child? Do you think her father, if he were guilty, would suddenly be out of church leadership positions and high profile business? Or do you think they'd have been swept under the rug even then, and she'd have been patted on the head and told to press on?

[_charity]

"I have been badly treated. Send me money to sue the Church we all hate." Speaks for itself.

I missed those two sentences on their website. Could you direct me to them?

They/she are asking for donations. Doesn't that mean to send money?

t;]And I wasn't speaking to her case, but to the subsequent actions (asking for money) and poster responses, the most informed of which doubted that she has a case.

My own read of the paperwork is that the claim as it is currently presented probably won't go anywhere. That does not mean I don't believe she could be correct in her accusations, or that she is entitled to some remedy.

Innocent until proven guilty.

uot;]1. If she isn'tt trying to get revenge or rich, why didn't she go to the legal authorities?

Do you know she didn't?

Doesn't say that on the blog.

t;]2. Is she trying to "Beck" her father and the Church for trhe same reasons Beck did what she did?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you suggesting that if a person's father is high profile they are somehow exempt from prosecution and above the law, or that it would be completely impossible for them to be guilty of sexual abuse?

No at all. That isn't the Beck case at all. I am suggesting that if a person gets a grduge, has a hidden agenda, AND there is some high profile person they can accuse of some vile deed, and if they can make money on it, some people give in to temptattion and go for the big bucks. That is what Beck did. I was asking if this is the same kind of case.

[
I'm unaware how the cases are related. It seems to me they aren't. You think that the plaintiff said to herself one day, "Gee, I think that Hugh Nibley's daughter is probably going to make a claim of abuse against her father a few years from now, so I think I'll get the jump on her and report my own?"

Beck's book was published in 2006. And the federal suit was filed Dec 26, 2007. Which came first?

t;]Those who were in the second rank of those who were named in the suit agaisnt FAIR by the Tanners. None of the named parties, but those close in. And the amount was upwards of $40,000 based on their reports of fund raising, and the amont of billable hours which could (or should) have been billed on the basis of what the suit, its motions, filings, etc. would have demanded in lawyer time.

What does the one case have to do with the other? [/qoote]

It has to do with asking for donations! File a suit. Ask for money. Direct parallel.

t;]NO, I don't not just automatically assume that if someone is claiming "abuse" their claim is without merit! But the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. And if it is "he said, she said" you want to know why a claim is made years and years later, is asking only for money, and if there are any other factors not related to the claim of abuse which are significant motivating factors.

It seems to me that when allegations of abuse are involved, particularly involving minors, that one needs to proceed cautiously. Certainly the accused should be "innocent until proven guilty," but allegations of abuse should never be taken lightly.

And where should those allegations be taken seriously? In Federal Courts? The press? Anti-Mormon message boards?

[
If I'm not mistaken, this is the same tightrope that other religious organizations, notably the Catholic Church, have been walking in recent years. Should they ignore all claims of abuse against clergy simply because they want to protect the clergy against spurious claims? Should they take all claims of abuse seriously in order to protect innocent victims, even if it means exposing scandal and possibly ruining lives?

Accusations of abuse should be made against the guilty parties. The abuser. And any accomoplice the abuser may have had. The guilty deserve any scandal.

Whose lives are you talking about ruining? The innocent? Those accused falsely? The Catholic parishoners in Portland who lost their cathedral when the diocese went bankrupt because of a multimillion dollar judgement?

[
My own read is that the LDS Church is in the same situation in cases like this. If the accused is a high-profile member of the LDS Church, as is the case in this instance, and has the potential of being guilty, wouldn't they prefer that the accusations all go away, rather than being exposed? Or is it more noble for the LDS Church to take the allegations seriously enough to possibly discipline the accused and/or remove them from leadership?

on should be removed from leadership. Or are you saying that any accused person should be assumed guilty and removed from leadership?

t;]I will say that when money enters the picture, the accuser has a pretty high hurdle to jump to make her claim in my opinion. "I just want justice. Oh, yes, and a million bucks."

Again, I would ask you, does that mean that those with money are less likely to be guilty of abuse? Or somehow exempt from it? Should the Catholic Church never be sued, even when allegations of abuse are well founded, simply because there is more money involved than might be the case with an individual?

I think it depends on what side of the coin you happen to be on in the coin-toss of life. If you or your daughter were abused by a church authority, I doubt you'd keep quiet. If you reported it to a bishop, and they turned against you, I doubt you'd keep quiet.

The question isn't to accuse or keep quiet. And if a bishop turned against me, you can bet I wouldn't keep quiet. I would be in the stake president's office immediately.

The question here is MONEY. If you have been wronged, justice is not found in money. Except as I said if there are damages which can be remediated with treatment, etc. which requires money. If yu have your feelings hurt ( the bishop turns against you, whatever that may mean), if you had a rotten childhood with crummy parents, money does nothing to change that. All money does now for something that happened in the past is to give you lottery winnings, buy a new car. Go to Disneyland. And now your rotten childhood was an episode of the Brady bunch. That is a ridiculous argument.

So the demand for money is what I said. Either a desire for revenge. Or greed. Neither one is admirable.

[
If the LDS Church knew that Christensen was guilty of the abuse, and continued to offer him positions of leadership and power, is that wrong in your view?

If any individual in a leadership position KNEW Christensen was guilty of abuse and continued to offer him positions of leadership that was wrong. I would seriously doubt any body thought he was guilty. The teachings of the Church are that abuse of children is a sin. Sexual abuse is doubly so because it violates the laws of chastity AND injures another.

And no one individual is THE CHURCH. So even if one person commits a sin, they aren't the Church.

[_the road to hana]

"I have been badly treated. Send me money to sue the Church we all hate." Speaks for itself.

I missed those two sentences on their website. Could you direct me to them?

They/she are asking for donations. Doesn't that mean to send money?

"Send me money to sue the Church we all hate" were your words. I don't see anywhere they were theirs.

[_the road to hana]

No at all. That isn't the Beck case at all. I am suggesting that if a person gets a grduge, has a hidden agenda, AND there is some high profile person they can accuse of some vile deed, and if they can make money on it, some people give in to temptattion and go for the big bucks. That is what Beck did. I was asking if this is the same kind of case.

If you think Hugh Nibley was wealthy, you're living on another planet.

I think Martha Beck is likewise innocent until proven guilty. Don't you?

[_the road to hana]

I'm unaware how the cases are related. It seems to me they aren't. You think that the plaintiff said to herself one day, "Gee, I think that Hugh Nibley's daughter is probably going to make a claim of abuse against her father a few years from now, so I think I'll get the jump on her and report my own?"

Beck's book was published in 2006. And the federal suit was filed Dec 26, 2007. Which came first?

The plaintiff in this case reported the abuse to her uncle many years prior to Beck's book being published.

[_the road to hana]

Accusations of abuse should be made against the guilty parties. The abuser. And any accomoplice the abuser may have had. The guilty deserve any scandal.

This is the most profound thing you've stated thus far, so I'm highlighting it. You should print it and tape a copy to your bathroom mirror.

The question isn't to accuse or keep quiet. And if a bishop turned against me, you can bet I wouldn't keep quiet. I would be in the stake president's office immediately.

And if the stake president failed you, or betrayed you?

The question here is MONEY. If you have been wronged, justice is not found in money. Except as I said if there are damages which can be remediated with treatment, etc. which requires money. If yu have your feelings hurt ( the bishop turns against you, whatever that may mean), if you had a rotten childhood with crummy parents, money does nothing to change that. All money does now for something that happened in the past is to give you lottery winnings, buy a new car. Go to Disneyland. And now your rotten childhood was an episode of the Brady bunch. That is a ridiculous argument.

So the demand for money is what I said. Either a desire for revenge. Or greed. Neither one is admirable.

So are you suggesting those who sue the Catholic Church for damages in abuse cases are wrong to do so?

If any individual in a leadership position KNEW Christensen was guilty of abuse and continued to offer him positions of leadership that was wrong. I would seriously doubt any body thought he was guilty. The teachings of the Church are that abuse of children is a sin. Sexual abuse is doubly so because it violates the laws of chastity AND injures another.

And no one individual is THE CHURCH. So even if one person commits a sin, they aren't the Church.

Then are you suggesting the Catholic Church shouldn't be sued for acts committed by members? Or that those who know it's wrong are somehow exempt from it?

That seems like a fairly naïve stance to me.

[_charity]

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:
"I have been badly treated. Send me money to sue the Church we all hate." Speaks for itself.

I missed those two sentences on their website. Could you direct me to them?

They/she are asking for donations. Doesn't that mean to send money?

"Send me money to sue the Church we all hate" were your words. I don't see anywhere they were theirs.

Don't defend the indefensible. They are on an anti-Mormon website, asking for money because they are suing the Church. Put it together, road. You are a smart cookie.

I think Martha Beck is likewise innocent until proven guilty. Don't you?

She wasn't accused. She put herself out there. You can read her words. She convicts herself.

charity wrote:

the road to hana wrote:

I'm unaware how the cases are related. It seems to me they aren't. You think that the plaintiff said to herself one day, "Gee, I think that Hugh Nibley's daughter is probably going to make a claim of abuse against her father a few years from now, so I think I'll get the jump on her and report my own?"

Beck's book was published in 2006. And the federal suit was filed Dec 26, 2007. Which came first?

The plaintiff in this case reported the abuse to her uncle many years prior to Beck's book being published.

Allegedly she did. Is the uncle still alive? Is he named in the suit?

[