Claims Mormon area authority 70 helped a convicted child sexual abuser

[pistolero]

Lots of innuendo there. I'd rather stick with what we know. The son is a convicted sexual offender, and his convictions demonstrate he has abused children and infants.

The assertion of the case is that the LDS church assisted in having him removed from sex offender registries in two states, specifically so his father could serve as MP. That action allowed him to have his son stay at the mission home in Spain, where he continued his pattern of molestation. I'm guessing staying on the registries might have prevented that, but I don't know for sure.

Focusing instead on how you think the victim's family could have done more to avoid molestation by the sex offender just sounds like victim-blaming. Discuss it if you want, but you'll need to support your speculation about the fault of others besides the offender.

Let's see how the case plays out.

I want to be clear - my intention is not to focus on what the family could have done differently. I'm trying to analyze what specific Church actions materially enabled abuse in this case.

The abuse occurred both before and after the record was expunged, in multiple locations (Washington, UT, Spain). The expungement itself didn't seem to materially affect the abuser's access or ability to commit these acts.

The Spain visit was a family Christmas gathering. Whether Phil was there as a mission president or if the family had gathered in Utah instead, the same access opportunity would have existed.

On the juvenile record expungement, it's a legal process designed for rehabilitation - the law recognizes brain development isn't complete at 16. The Church pushing this, while (extremely) questionable and frankly outrageous, given their motives (enabling a mission president calling), didn't create new opportunities for abuse in this specific case, from the available information (although I'm sure more information will come out). To be crystal clear, I think this involvement from the church is outrageous and diabolical, and this is a topic that needs some analysis.

However, in this case, the subsequent abuse in Utah shows that location and record status weren't likely determining factors - this was about family access.

I absolutely agree the Church needs scrutiny for their dreadful pattern in the handling of abuse cases. But in this specific instance (from what we know so far), their actions regarding the record expungement don't appear to have materially enabled or prevented abuse that was occurring through family contact.

The Church is absolutely rancid on this topic and there need to be so many institutional changes eg. mandatory reporting requirements, better training, professional services involvement, and clear policies about known offenders to suggest some. And clearly, record expungement isn't really something that a church should be involved with, good at or even know much about.

[Marcus]

The Church pushing this, while (extremely) questionable and frankly outrageous, given their motives (enabling a mission president calling), didn't create new opportunities for abuse in this specific case, from the available information...

How do you know that??? The relative was not the only child abused, as far as I know.

It's my understanding that the lawsuit against the church has to do with failing to protect sexual abuse victims. Pursuing an expungement for reasons unrelated the abuse, in my opinion, resulted in removal from a sex registry. This sex registry entry is intended to protect victims. Just because, in your opinion, others also didn't protect one of the victims (an opinion with which I do NOT agree) doesn't let the LDS church off the hook for their inappropriate involvement.

But again, I can't see all the court papers so I am also speculating.

[pistolero]

How do you know that??? The relative was not the only child abused, as far as I know.

It's my understanding that the lawsuit against the church has to do with failing to protect sexual abuse victims. Pursuing an expungement for reasons unrelated the abuse, in my opinion, resulted in removal from a sex registry. This sex registry entry is intended to protect victims. Just because, in your opinion, others also didn't protect one of the victims (an opinion with which I do NOT agree) doesn't let the LDS church off the hook for their inappropriate involvement.

But again, I can't see all the court papers so I am also speculating.

This is a personal injury case according to the filing. So while there may be other victims (which there are), this specific lawsuit seems to focus on establishing the chain of causation between the church's actions and the harm to this particular plaintiff. The existence of other potential victims, while tragic, may not be directly relevant to proving the elements of this specific personal injury case.

Or maybe the church buying a known abuser a plane ticket actually comes under the umbrella of "Sex Trafficking", and then there are some real wider problems for the church?

[Marcus]

If there's one thing the LDS church is good at, it's justifying immoral and unethical acts as long as technically they are legal. Or not even legal, just something they can throw enough money at until they win, legally or not.

LDS lawyers should rot in hell.

[I Have Questions]

How do you know that??? The relative was not the only child abused, as far as I know.

It's my understanding that the lawsuit against the church has to do with failing to protect sexual abuse victims. Pursuing an expungement for reasons unrelated the abuse, in my opinion, resulted in removal from a sex registry. This sex registry entry is intended to protect victims. Just because, in your opinion, others also didn't protect one of the victims (an opinion with which I do NOT agree) doesn't let the LDS church off the hook for their inappropriate involvement.

But again, I can't see all the court papers so I am also speculating.

This is a personal injury case according to the filing. So while there may be other victims (which there are), this specific lawsuit seems to focus on establishing the chain of causation between the church's actions and the harm to this particular plaintiff. The existence of other potential victims, while tragic, may not be directly relevant to proving the elements of this specific personal injury case.

Or maybe the church buying a known abuser a plane ticket actually comes under the umbrella of "Sex Trafficking", and then there are some real wider problems for the church?

I think the Church/Apostolic involvement and therefore liability, comes from:

- An Apostle or Apostles advocating for a Mission President candidate to do something untoward in order to gain the calling
- The Church providing resources to facilitate the removal of a person from the sex offenders register for the purposes of covering it up
- The Church funding the trip of a known sex offender to a location where they knew he would have access to a previous victim

As I understand the chain of offending to this one victim, they were first abused by Payden when they were an infant (presumably in Phil's home during a visit). They were then subsequently abused by Payden in Madrid in the Mission Home of Phil during a multi-person family Christmas visit to Madrid (paid for by the Church - there's a separate discussion about how this treatment of a Mission President's mission compares with that of missionaries). They were then further abused by Payden back in Utah at a later date. After which the victim's parent has decided to sue. That he is suing Phil and his Wife suggests the abuses took place on their watch, and that they kept the information about Payden being a sex offender secret from him.

[Dr. Shades]

I don't see why the church couldn't have called the guy to be a mission president and leave the son on the sex offender registry, since the father (assumedly) isn't responsible for the sins of the child. Had they done so, the kid would've stayed on the registry.

If that didn't work, I don't see why Phil didn't do the right thing and turn down the calling in order to rightfully leave the kid on the registry.

[I Have Questions]

I don't see why the church couldn't have called the guy to be a mission president and leave the son on the sex offender registry, since the father (assumedly) isn't responsible for the sins of the child. Had they done so, the kid would've stayed on the registry.

If that didn't work, I don't see why Phil didn't do the right thing and turn down the calling in order to rightfully leave the kid on the registry.

Good questions. The fact that Phil was prepared to do the wrong thing should have disqualified him from being deemed worthy of serving as a Mission President. Instead, that wrongful behaviour was what clinched the calling.

Was Payden deemed a dependant at the time of Phil’s calling as a Mission President? Having a resident in a Mission Home that was a registered sex offender is obviously not a tenable situation. The solution wasn’t to not call Phil, it was to hide the sex offending. Once again the Apostles show they have a lot of tolerance for sexual abuse, and that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing when they think nobody’s looking. The same applies to Grandpa Phil.

[Dr. Shades]

I don't see why the church couldn't have called the guy to be a mission president and leave the son on the sex offender registry, since the father (assumedly) isn't responsible for the sins of the child. Had they done so, the kid would've stayed on the registry.

If that didn't work, I don't see why Phil didn't do the right thing and turn down the calling in order to rightfully leave the kid on the registry.

Good questions. The fact that Phil was prepared to do the wrong thing should have disqualified him from being deemed worthy of serving as a Mission President. Instead, that wrongful behaviour was what clinched the calling.

Was Payden deemed a dependant at the time of Phil’s calling as a Mission President? Having a resident in a Mission Home that was a registered sex offender is obviously not a tenable situation. The solution wasn’t to not call Phil, it was to hide the sex offending. Once again the Apostles show they have a lot of tolerance for sexual abuse, and that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing when they think nobody’s looking. The same applies to Grandpa Phil.

Those are all fantastic points. Regarding your third to last sentence, if he was indeed a dependent, then having a convicted sex offender in the mission home wasn't a problem at all. Nope, no sir-ee. The problem was having anyone know that there was a convicted sex offender in the mission home.

Talk about messed-up priorities!

[pistolero]

Was Payden deemed a dependant at the time of Phil’s calling as a Mission President? Having a resident in a Mission Home that was a registered sex offender is obviously not a tenable situation. The solution wasn’t to not call Phil, it was to hide the sex offending. Once again the Apostles show they have a lot of tolerance for sexual abuse, and that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing when they think nobody’s looking. The same applies to Grandpa Phil.

According to the mission blog, Paydan was living in SLC - he was born in 1998. The other brother was living in Provo. Prez. Phil served from 2018-2021.

[pistolero]

Was Payden deemed a dependant at the time of Phil’s calling as a Mission President? Having a resident in a Mission Home that was a registered sex offender is obviously not a tenable situation. The solution wasn’t to not call Phil, it was to hide the sex offending. Once again the Apostles show they have a lot of tolerance for sexual abuse, and that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing when they think nobody’s looking. The same applies to Grandpa Phil.

According to the mission blog, Paydan was living in SLC - he was born in 1998. The other brother was living in Provo. Prez. Phil served from 2018-2021.

Speaking of the mission blog, just went to look for the December 2019 entry, was suspicious that it had been deleted, but found the January 2020 entry and it seems like they were too busy to write an entry in December. Anyway, January 2020 mentions family visits, shows photos of family together (perpetrator and victim) doing stuff, etc... and some happy news... It's all very bizarre and disturbing knowing (the limited) that we know now. I'd love to know what was going on in Phil and Cathy's head - the stark contrast between the public image presented and the reality behind it is unsettling. I wonder if the mother of the victim actually went on the trip, she doesn't appear in any photos. Which seems strange in itself.

What's particularly difficult for me to understand is the decision to accept a mission president assignment that would take them far from home given the circumstances. If I had a child with a history of sexual abuse, even an adult child, I would like to think I would feel a responsibility: to society - helping ensure proper supervision and rehabilitation; and to my convicted family member - staying involved to provide support and prevent further situations that could cause them further problems, you know, because as I parent I would love them.

Taking a three-year assignment thousands of miles away seems to conflict with both these responsibilities. The focus on supervising other people's young adult children while potentially leaving a vulnerable situation at home raises serious questions about priorities and judgment. And it's not just Phil and Cathy, someone in the upper echelons of Church leadership was also unable to see this.