Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Rosebud]

I believe publicly humiliating your ex-wife in what seems to be revenge against her and your ex-FIL is a wrong way to deal with loss.

I believe seeking to get a young adult daughter to publicly discuss her childhood sexual abuse with the media before she is really old enough to offer full consent is a wrong way to cope with divorce.

In fact, I believe both of these actions are so wrong they are abusive.

[_AmyJo]

I believe publicly humiliating your ex-wife in what seems to be revenge against her and your ex-FIL is a wrong way to deal with loss.

I believe seeking to get a young adult daughter to publicly discuss her childhood sexual abuse with the media before she is really old enough to offer full consent is a wrong way to cope with divorce.

In fact, I believe both of these actions are so wrong they are abusive.

She is at least 19 or 20, so that makes her an adult. He says she asked him to go public. Who really knows what to believe right now, since all we've heard so far is from him.

Which brings me back to the question of whether these children have any ongoing relations with that side of their family? It sounds like his family is pitted against sides. It would be really sad if his daughter is merely a pawn in all this.

[_Rosebud]

I believe publicly humiliating your ex-wife in what seems to be revenge against her and your ex-FIL is a wrong way to deal with loss.

I believe seeking to get a young adult daughter to publicly discuss her childhood sexual abuse with the media before she is really old enough to offer full consent is a wrong way to cope with divorce.

In fact, I believe both of these actions are so wrong they are abusive.

She is at least 19 or 20, so that makes her an adult. He says she asked him to go public. Who really knows what to believe right now, since all we've heard so far is from him.

Which brings me back to the question of whether these children have any ongoing relations with that side of their family? It sounds like his family is pitted against sides. It would be really sad if his daughter is merely a pawn in all this.

I tend to think that women are used as pawns rather often within Mormonism. Men have the more powerful voices and some men have a tendency to butt heads with each other to the detriment of the women who unfortunately happen to be attached to them in some way. Some of the men hardly seem to have any awareness of how their actions affect the women around them; others are aware but don't care as long as they achieve their own objectives in their conflicts with other men.

His ex-wife may not have enough personal empowerment to effectively stand up for herself publicly. He may know this. She might have the voice she needs, though. I guess we'll find out. I wonder if we'll hear from her or not. Maybe other men will speak for her.

[_Starbuck]

Latest update can be found here:

http://www.lifeaftermormonism.net/profi ... urch-child

I have not read it yet.

[_AmyJo]

Latest update can be found here:

http://www.lifeaftermormonism.net/profi ... urch-child

I have not read it yet.

Thanks for passing it along. I just read his update. The next is scheduled for next week sometime.

I feel like I'm watching from one episode to the next of, "As the World Turns."

I'm reserving judgment for now. He needs to tell his story, that much is clear.

[_Rosebud]

If you're reading this Karren, you've added so much detail that I can't understand your points.

I think you're saying that you don't want your ex-wife using covert recordings because you believe they are immoral and you want her to know that it is wrong for her to record you covertly even though you and your son record her overtly. You want us to know that you know the difference and you taught her the difference, but she didn't listen to you.

How did you get the recording you used to get her attorney in trouble and get primary custody if you weren't making a covert recording? Was covert moral in that circumstance? Why? Am I remembering this wrong? I'm still confused about how you caught them lying on recording so you could gain custody.

Also, you're upset because Mikelsen and his friend whose name started with a D tried to covertly record you and you caught them? Is that one of your points? Why is this significant to the coverup? Are you saying this is proof they planned your divorce and the fact that they planned your divorce is proof your wife and your daughter were abused?

Why are all of you recording each other? Can you explain the significance of all these recordings? What are you doing?

Why are you saying you don't want to sexually shame the victims and are calling both your ex-wife and your daughter victims of Mikelsen, but the only strange sexual story you tell is between your ex-wife and daughter while bathing? Why are you sexually shaming the people you call victims and not telling explicit stories about perpetrators?

I understand that these detailed memories are part of your story, but you are publicly shaming several people in your family. I need you to spell out exactly what you're getting at. Put your thesis first and then provide evidence.

[Schreech]

Rosebud, it is uncomfortable reading. He's not a lawyer. He's not perfect. He's an imperfect guy who married an imperfect woman. It looks like he began to suspect his wife was abused by her father. It's a suspicion. The marriage was already in a pretty dire state. I hope J.... has found happiness, and I am pretty sure he has too. So this isn't about getting back at his wife. This is about how skewed priorities commensurate with a church wide policy that sees the abuse of children as a lesser sin than disloyalty and apostasy plays out in real terms.

Whatever the specifics of the case, this is the result. I had myself discounted Pace's work because somehow, historically I had felt it was discounted..that's the impression I got at the time. He's right on that, and I say that as a European member.

[_Mary]

One further thought on this.

I think Ron's motive is to lay bare what he perceives to be corruption in the highest echelons of leadership, and the extent they will go to protect one of their own. This includes blacking a person's name (Ron's in this instance) with an apostle gathering people together to produce affidavits that make him look like a crazy, evil and dishonourable man.

Is this surprising? The history of the church indicates that this has been a modus operandi for a very long time. In this instance Ron happens to have been the target.

Why was Scott involved? What makes this marriage break up so dangerous that he felt he needed to be involved? Are there any precedents for this involvement?

Now, it could be that Micklesen, if guilty, has fooled even the highst echelons. They believed him. Ron is the crazy one and they doubled down on him to protect someone (a seventy) they believed to be innocent. Maybe.

Or maybe this is a case where he expresses guilt, pleas for forgiveness and they want to keep it in the *family* at Ron's expense?

I honestly believe that however imperfectly Ron is presenting his case to us, with all it's messiness, that Mickelsen was willing to lie in order to destroy Ron's character and to keep his family's and his own problem with child abuse hidden.

Digressing a little, if someone has had their calling and election made sure, as has Tom Philips, and I wouldn't mind betting, Micklesen. It means that their salvation and exaltation are guaranteed unless they deny the church. They have a free ticket to celestial paradise. That's a mind f**k right there. Interestingly Philips has received no church discipline that I know of, wheras both Chris Ralph and Steve Bloor's names were taken off the records without their knowledge. They were excommunicated without a court, without them even knowing.

I just put this in because I think this ordinance may sincerely produce an inner circle of loyal followers where different rules apply?

[_I have a question]

If these accusations were being made so publicly and so explicitly against you but you were innocent, what actions would you take? And why hasn't Mickelson taken them?

[_ludwigm]

If these accusations were being made so publicly and so explicitly against you but you were innocent, what actions would you take? And why hasn't Mickelson taken them?

If these accusations were being made so publicly and so explicitly against you but and you were innocent guilty, what actions would you take?

Subside into silence.

At least in our mafia/bananarepublic this is the way. Plus, create a case against the other party to disorient the opposition.