Missionary charged with abusing 12-year-old convert

[_Notoriuswun]

I don't think this reflects anything on the church. It's one guy out of 60,000 in the field. There's bound to be someone in that large a group of people who will do almost anything you can imagine. I'm not trying to defend the church or anything here, just to say that this isn't really an anti-church matter.

They said the same thing (initially) about the Catholic priests.

And I beg you define "anti-church matter".

[_Bond...James Bond]

Goofiest quote of the day regarding this story ..

Hammer :
The timing of this is questionable. I would like to know how the parents feel about Mit Romney becoming President.

I just read the thread over there. That board collects morons like crap collects flies.

[_Notoriuswun]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5315371

Lets see how fast the church can settle the matter out of court.

Why should the church even be involved in this case? I don't see anything that warrants action against the church.

Jersey Girl

He was serving a mission FOR THE LDS CHURCH.

A hypothetical: Would you sue the guy who introduced smoking to you?...probably not. But you probably would if you found out that he worked for Phillip Morris.

[_Jersey Girl]

He was serving a mission FOR THE LDS CHURCH.

A hypothetical: Would you sue the guy who introduced smoking to you?...probably not. But you probably would if you found out that he worked for Phillip Morris.

Stop YELLING at me you overly flippant ding dong. Read the story. According to the brief report that Vegas links to:

"The boy told a Salt Lake County sheriff's detective that on Dec.
24, 2006, he and his mother went to Saucier's residence to give him a Christmas present, according to the complaint. Saucier "gave him a hug, then reached into his pants, and touched his penis," the boy told investigators. "

According to the above, the boy was with his mother.

Jersey Girl

[_Notoriuswun]

Stop YELLING at me you overly flippant ding dong. Read the story. According to the brief report that Vegas links to:

"The boy told a Salt Lake County sheriff's detective that on Dec.
24, 2006, he and his mother went to Saucier's residence to give him a Christmas present, according to the complaint. Saucier "gave him a hug, then reached into his pants, and touched his penis," the boy told investigators. "

According to the above, the boy was with his mother.

Jersey Girl

Yes, he was with his mother while the mish reached down into his pants...whats the point?

An LDS missionary still fondled a twelve year old boy.

[_Mister Scratch]

He was serving a mission FOR THE LDS CHURCH.

A hypothetical: Would you sue the guy who introduced smoking to you?...probably not. But you probably would if you found out that he worked for Phillip Morris.

An excellent point, Notoriuswun. While I can understand the POV of others who argue that the missionary acted alone and without the Church's "sanction," I think it's important to remember just what a missionary's life is typically like. Basically, a day in the life of the average missionary is almost totally scripted by the Church---down to the minute, almost. So I think that Notoriuswun's example actually does not go far enough. Whereas a Phillip Morris salesperson represents the company, an LDS missionary both represents and is "controlled" by the Church. Let's face it, the Church keeps quite a tight leash on the missionaries, and thus I think it is entirely fair to draw a correlation between this young man's admittedly aberrant behavior, and his superiors within the Church, or at least the atmosphere created by the Church and its mission program. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to overlook things such as the missionary lifestyle, the intense pressure placed upon missionaries, the regimented daily schedule, the admonitions against any sexual feelings whatsoever, etc., etc.

[_Coggins7]

An excellent point, Notoriuswun. While I can understand the POV of others who argue that the missionary acted alone and without the Church's "sanction," I think it's important to remember just what a missionary's life is typically like. Basically, a day in the life of the average missionary is almost totally scripted by the Church---down to the minute, almost. So I think that Notoriuswun's example actually does not go far enough. Whereas a Phillip Morris salesperson represents the company, an LDS missionary both represents and is "controlled" by the Church. Let's face it, the Church keeps quite a tight leash on the missionaries, and thus I think it is entirely fair to draw a correlation between this young man's admittedly aberrant behavior, and his superiors within the Church, or at least the atmosphere created by the Church and its mission program. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to overlook things such as the missionary lifestyle, the intense pressure placed upon missionaries, the regimented daily schedule, the admonitions against any sexual feelings whatsoever, etc., etc.

Would anyone like to take a shot at precisely what Scratch is implying here. Its pretty sick really, and indicative again, of just what lies beneath...


Loran

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, he was with his mother while the mish reached down into his pants...whats the point?

An LDS missionary still fondled a twelve year old boy.

Well Hail, Notoriouswun, based on the story from the link provided, it looks to me as if the Mother initiated an unofficial meeting between her son and the missionary at the missionaries private residence. That is to say, the missionary wasn't "on the clock". It was a social meeting, not for the purpose of any type of missionary purpose such as conversion, giving lessons, getting a commitment for baptism, etc. Since the story gives no evidence whatsoever that the meeting was either arranged or conducted under the auspices of the LDS Church, it's the missionary and the mother's legal problem. Not the church.

We'll see.

Jersey Girl

[_Notoriuswun]

Well Hail, Notoriouswun, based on the story from the link provided, it looks to me as if the Mother initiated an unofficial meeting between her son and the missionary at the missionaries private residence. That is to say, the missionary wasn't "on the clock". It was a social meeting, not for the purpose of any type of missionary purpose such as conversion, giving lessons, getting a commitment for baptism, etc. Since the story gives no evidence whatsoever that the meeting was either arranged or conducted under the auspices of the LDS Church, it's the missionary and the mother's legal problem. Not the church.

We'll see.

Jersey Girl

Except that a missionary acts as an ambassador for the LDS Church. I agree that personal decisions shouldn't have an impact on a corporations err religions finances, but that is beside the point. A legal precedence was achieved in the mid-90's when several families successfully sued the Catholic church (their local Diocese I believe) for millions of dollars. In that now famous ruling, the church was held legally responsible for the priests actions. As a missionary is on the churchs payroll, and has alot of the same responsibilities, I think the family could successfuly sue the LDS church if they were so inclined to do so.

[_Mercury]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5315371

Lets see how fast the church can settle the matter out of court.

Why should the church even be involved in this case? I don't see anything that warrants action against the church.

Jersey Girl

Lets say PR for now.

Hmm, on second thought your probably right Jersey. The community is largely sympathetic. The PR budget needed to cover something like this is going to not be needed. The church owns the newspapers, tv stations and more.

They have it covered.