Read This Before Giving Any More Money To The Church

[_GoodK]

Yes, this is what it looks like. A typical "session" with a Mormon missionary at the Utah Boys Ranch/West Ridge Academy.

[_GoodK]

What if they didn't realize they were dealing with evil? It certainly wouldn't be the first time for them (*cough* Hoffmann *cough*) or other organizations to be used by evil men.

That's why what I am doing is important.

While I think you're doing good work in trying to put an end to it and hold accountable those responsible for such despicable acts, I also fear you are reaching a bit too far in assigning blame. Now it may be that the church did knowingly support evil and if so it deserves to be held accountable. However, I think it more likely that a bishop or even a general authority acted in ignorance.

It *might* be possible that they haven't heard of my website, any of the YouTube videos, the radio interviews, or the article I wrote (even though it had an outrageous amount of reads last I heard). But I think the time when they are forced to publicly denounce (or reprehensibly endorse) is readily approaching.

It's usually best to assume the most noble motives in others when trying to judge how kind or cruel they may be, but best to understand and account for evil possibilities before making ones-self potentially vulnerable.

While I generally agree that the motives of church leaders are not usually malicious, I don't think ignorance is a viable defense for negligence.

There is a legal term I was just made aware of - called liability of negligent referral. Church leaders are revered and trusted have an enormous responsibility to their members and are supposed to look out for their best interest.

The California Supreme Court in 1997 permitted a student who alleged sexual molestation by a teacher to sue that teacher’s previous employer which had provided that student’s school with a favorable reference. The former employer failed to mention in the reference that the school had received complaints of sexual harassment and improper touching by that teacher. The letter of recommendation for the employee in this case praised his skills and unconditionally recommended him for an administrative position. He was hired by another school district where he allegedly sexually assaulted a 13 year old student. The court did not say that a former employer had an affirmative duty to a prospective employer to provide references; the decision was based on the fact that the employer provided a positive reference that omitted key pertinent facts.

The California Supreme Court decided that the positive recommendation given by the former employer amounted to "misleading half-truths" for purposes of negligent misrepresentation. Further, the Court reasoned that "liability may be imposed if the recommendation letter amounts to an affirmative misrepresentation presenting a foreseeable and substantial risk of harm to a third person." Finally, the Court held that the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff not to misrepresent facts in describing "the qualifications and character" of the former employee, when the misrepresentations presented "a substantial and foreseeable risk of physical injury" to the plaintiff. It went on to add that "in the absence of resulting physical injury, or some special relationship between the parties, the writer of the letter of recommendation should have no duty of care extending to third persons for misrepresentations concerning former employees."

A problem with the court’s analysis is that none of the prior complaints about the former employee had been confirmed through any form of evidentiary hearing in which the employee was accorded due process. This creates a major problem for employers. If they disclose unverified allegations, they risk being guilty of defamation. If the allegations are actually false, they risk ruining the life of an innocent person. Yet this decision suggests that allegations may have to be disclosed if they relate to behaviors that may cause a substantial and foreseeable risk of harm to someone else.

A bishop (or stake president, in my case) that gives a Utah Boys Ranch referral to a family is at the very least being negligent.

[_asbestosman]

While I generally agree that the motives of church leaders are not usually malicious, I don't think ignorance is a viable defense for negligence.

Agreed.

A bishop (or stake president, in my case) that gives a Utah Boys Ranch referral to a family is at the very least being negligent.

Not necessarily (in my non-lawyer opinion). Note that in the 1997 case you referred to that the school had received numerous complaints of sexual harassment. Had the stake president received similar complaints which deserved investigation? I would argue that even if he did, it doesn't necessarily implicate the church, just the stake president (although the church probably should ensure that ecclesiastical leaders understand the necessity of adequate investigation to such allegations).

[_GoodK]

The young man's parents revealed where the money came from. Note that his parents couldn't afford it, and his mom had cancer at the time, and the bishop still apparently thought that the best way to help was to spend $30,000 of the ward's money on a Mormon gulag.

[_Droopy]

Goodk does not care about facts, evidence, or documentation.

All he cares about is bashing and impugning the Church.

This person, like so many others here, is not above any slander or defamation.

Or outright deception.

None.

[_GoodK]

Goodk does not care about facts, evidence, or documentation.

All he cares about is bashing and impugning the Church.

This person, like so many others here, is not above any slander or defamation.

Or outright deception.

None.

I have to say I'm disappointed. This just isn't the high quality thesaurus raping, semi coherent heckling Droopy is capable of.

Where is a yawning smilie when you need one?

[_Yoda]

Goodk does not care about facts, evidence, or documentation.

All he cares about is bashing and impugning the Church.

This person, like so many others here, is not above any slander or defamation.

Or outright deception.

None.

Are you saying that GoodK is making up what happened to him at the Utah Boys Ranch, simply as a means to make the Church look bad?

That's a serious and rather bizarre set of gymnastic to jump through, just to malign the Church.

I don't begrudge Eric having resentment toward the Church based on what happened to him. It's obvious that there was, at the very least, influence from Church leaders involved with the decision to send him there. And the abuse needs to stop happening. This place definitely needs to be shut down.

My feeling is that Church authorities honestly don't know what is happening there, and they need to be informed. I don't see how any of the general authorities would support the horror stories told.

[_Danna]

Goodk does not care about facts, evidence, or documentation.

All he cares about is bashing and impugning the Church.

This person, like so many others here, is not above any slander or defamation.

Or outright deception.

None.

Your statement reminds me of a Roman Catholic argument that any woman sinful enough to have an abortion would not be above most any other sin (specifically false accusations of rape etc. if abortion were restricted to rape cases only).

To recap:
A. All those who oppose the church are working for Satan

B. Satan is the Prince of Lies, the master slanderer, defamer, and deceiver

C. Therefore, all those who oppose the church will use slander, defamation, and deception.

It must be pretty scary in your world.

So an ex-mormon (say one who considers the church to have defrauded him of the 'best' years of his life) who wishes to protect others from similar anguish by exposing genuine issues and concerns is actually a tool of Satan and therefore WILL use slander, defamation, and deception?

[_harmony]

GoodK's expose of this horror has gone on for months now. Where are the CPS inspections? Where are the arrests? Where are the legal ramifications?

Is Utah really this backwards? Or is no one listening? Or hasn't GoodK contacted the right people yet?

[_GoodK]

I'm beginning to think Utah really is that backwards.

People are definitely listening, Buttars has sent my site ten thousand visitors over the last three days.

I think people care, just not the right people. Utah is notoriously bad for "troubled kids."

HEAL recommends no parent subject any child to any program in Utah as Utah is corrupt and refuses to regulate or take action against confirmedly abusive programs such as WWASPS, Provo Canyon School, Sorenson's Ranch, etc... Don't send your kid to UT!

http://www.heal-online.org/investigate.htm


Maybe when the documentary hits Sundance in 2011 (cross your fingers) the Utah media will finally cover the story.