Smac from MDDB has once again demonstrated how sexist a Mormon male can be:

[Gabriel]

But -- let's assume his scenario but fill in the blanks a little differently. Suppose everyone there is Mormon and from the same ward, and some of the women are teens. Suppose of the two men getting into the tub, one is a general authority and the other is his brother. Suppose the lifeguard is the son of a fellow GA. Suppose the women want to introduce their kids to the GA and have a typical "star struck" moment among leadership. Now what are the possibilities?

"My brother would never do that!" And then when it turns out he probably did, well, everyone knows their first commitment is to the Church and for the greater good they must maintain their silence.

In 1994, Ronald Poelman was in the First Quorum of the Seventy when his little brother Lloyd was caught in flagrante being serviced by 19-year-old girl in his car.

Charge against leader put attorney in quandry

SOUTH SALT LAKE, Utah - City Attorney Kevin Watkins had a personal and ethical dilemma. It sat in his in-basket for 10 days before he realized it. But when he finally picked up and read the police report and accompanying citation, Watkins was stunned.

Even after repeated readings, he found it inconceivable that his neighbor, B. Lloyd Poelman, an esteemed attorney and Watkins' ecclesiastical leader, had been arrested for soliciting a prostitute.

As a prosecutor, Watkins duty was clear. But what were his obligations as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Or as an officer of the court and member of the Utah State Bar?

Watkins, a devoted Mormon, said there hadn't been a peep about the incident in the church's Monument Park North Stake, where Poelman served as president. Watkins doubted church leaders knew.

And then there was the bar association. Poelman, 60, was a well-known and powerful partner in the firm of Kirton McConkie Poelman, the primary law firm used by the Mormon Church. Had he told his partners? Had the incident been reported to the bar's disciplinary arm? Nearly two weeks after the arrest, Watkins had heard nothing. Not from Poelman. Not from the church. The silence, he said, left him in a terrible quandary.

Was it his job to tell?

"In my mind, this was such a serious thing," said the 33-year-old Watkins. "I agonized over it for a couple of It was the most difficult thing I've had to struggle with in my life."

Watkins' dilemma began on a busy corner at half-past midnight on July 16.

Waiting at the southbound stoplight at 2100 South and State Street was an unmarked sheriffs car driven by Deputy Doug Walters, a vice detective who had been cruising the county's strip clubs for violations. En route to another bar, he saw a young woman standing on the southwest corner, gesturing and yelling at passing cars.

Her name, at least on police records, was [REDACTED]. She was 19. Walters pulled into the parking lot of a convenience store on the corner to watch the woman. As he did, a late-model Nissan Maxima slowed. The driver leaned over, opened the passenger door and [REDACTED] got in.

Walters followed the car around the corner into a business parking lot. After it stopped, he sneaked up and observed the woman performing oral sex on the driver. The car pulled out. Walters followed and stopped it.

The driver, Poelman, "was scared to death," the deputy recalled. "He told me nothing had happened."

The lie angered Walters. "I mean, I told him, 'I seen what I seen, and now you're telling me I didn't.'"

Walters began reading Poelman his rights, and explained he'd be booked into jail and his car impounded. "That's when he fell apart," Walters said. "He said he didn't want to go to jail." Poelman confessed he'd given the girl $30 for oral sex.

Walters cited Poelman and released him, but booked the woman into jail because she didn't have a legitimate address.

The next day, he dropped off a copy of his report and citation at the South Salt Lake city offices. Watkins didn't see them until July 26.

"I was confused," he recalled. "At first I thought (Poelman) was a witness. Then I saw he was the alleged actor. I went into a sort of shock."

After two sleepless nights and long talks with his wife, father and others, Watkins called the church's regional representative, Wayne Peterson of Holladay, Poelman's immediate ecclesiastical superior. "As far as I know, it was the first he'd heard about it," Watkins said.

Peterson said later that after hearing from Watkins, he referred the matter to his own superiors, whom he declined to name.

The same day, Watkins called the Utah State Bar, at first posing an anonymous, hypothetical scenario based on Poelman's arrest.
Told the matter should be referred for possible discipline, he filed a formal complaint.

A bar investigation is pending.

"I have not spoken to anyone else about this except Mr. Watkins," said assistant disciplinary counsel Alan Barber, who would not elaborate.
Oscar McConkie Jr., Poelman's law partner, said Thursday he was unaware of a bar investigation. He said Poelman's name was "no longer on the marquee," but that he continued to practice law in the office.

"The firm has taken no action on his status," McConkie said. "The firm has determined that it would not take any action under the heat of the problem."

There was a time when Watkins thought he'd been spared at least some problems posed by the case. Poelman pleaded guilty to the class misdemeanor on Aug. 1, and Watkins role as prosecutor was resolved.

But that changed a month later when Poelman, accompanied by an attorney, withdrew the guilty plea, forcing Watkins to remove himself from the case due to a conflict of interest. Another attorney will be brought in to handle the case.

In many ways, that is a relief to the young prosecutor. "This has been very difficult for me, personally and professionally," Watkins said. "I don't regret it. I've been told by the regional representative and the people to whom he spoke that I did the right thing."

Poelman is due back in court Sept. 19 before South Salt Lake Justice Paul Thompson, ostensibly to enter into a so-called "diversionary agreement."
Such agreements allow a plea to be held in abeyance for a year. If the defendant meets several stringent probationary requirements, the charge is dismissed and there is no criminal record.

Watkins believes the publicity resulting from withdrawing the plea is a high price to pay for a clean record. "Personally, I think he got some bad legal advice," he said.

Poelman's attorney, John Walsh, refused to discuss the case and has advised his client not to talk, either.

While Watkins won't be prosecuting the case, he said he will confer with the new attorney. Regardless of any diversionary agreement, Watkins will demand that Poelman enter a guilty plea and undergo the usual conditions surrounding such convictions, including an AIDS test.

Poelman was excommunicated from the Mormon Church on Aug. 14 in a secret disciplinary council.

Earlier in the day, members of the Monument Park North Stake, which comprises several wards, or congregations, met in a special stake conference. Some who attended felt the meeting lacked the tone of contrition and apology they had expected.

Speakers included Boyd K. Packer, acting president of the church's Council of the Twelve Apostles, who praised Poelman for having come forward. His remarks reflected an expectation of Poelman's future rebaptism.

Poelman also was allowed to speak, but his words left a sour taste with some including the young South Salt Lake prosecutor.

"Because of the seriousness of this offense, after I thought about it, I felt there was a lack of contrition on Lloyd Poelman's part," Watkins said. "Others I've talked to sensed it perhaps stronger than I did."

There's a lot more to this story on Floodlit: https://floodlit.org/a/a290/

[Gadianton]

If readers of this thread would be kind enough to go to page four of the linked discussion, and then tell us their impression of sumac’s gender apologetics I’d like to hear your opinion.

One of the objectives of the book Habits of a Peacemaker is to look for solutions that address underlying interests rather than simply trying to win arguments. Does smac’s posting style seem conciliatory or does it look adversarial and argumentative?

I read page 4, thank you for isolating the most relevant material. Smac didn't strike me as uncharacteristically abrasive, but he seems to believe he can always settle the matter in a way that keeps the church leaders blameless and above question. Like Dan. He maintains a solid baseline abrasiveness that declares the priesthood is the law and not subject to negotiation. The classic line from my mission was, "we are here to teach, not to be taught". To me that captures Smac's posting style perfectly, he's here to teach, not to be taught.

The female posters seemed pretty clear to me. They've all had one or more uncomfortable experiences with men and so remain vigilant around men in general. Smac is tying himself in knots to paint their position as unjustly stereotyping or accusing men. He points out that only a small percentage of men are offenders. He totally doesn't get the very basic point that his interlocutors are saying there are no grounds for determining in advance which can be trusted and which can't be; this is from their own lived experience not a statistic, therefore they must remain vigilant. It doesn't matter if it's one in a hundred if you have no way of saying which is the one.

Smac doesn't recognize the lengths Joseph Smith and others went to gain access to sexual prey. I mean, he made up an entire book of scripture just as a pretense. A few years ago I was in Utah visiting friends and family, one of the households told me to hold off for a couple hours because the babysitter was there and they didn't want to make her uncomfortable with some strange man showing up. I'm like, sure, no problem and thought nothing of it. I suppose had I been Smac I would have pointed out that statistically it's unlikely that any man coming to the house would be a predator and gotten offended over it. Later, it was explained to me by the wife that when she did babysitting for people in the ward there was this one father who always managed to find her alone for a few moments and "test the waters" with his priesthood humor and whatnot.

[Marcus]

Smac was the first person in the mddb thread that introduced the idea that women think 'all men are potential rapists.' Every woman and most men who responded thereafter explained their reasoning for that as a possible starting point and gave context, including relevant statistics.

Here is Smac's last post on the thread:

See, I think "All men are potential rapists" is clear and unambiguous. I also see you and others tacitly acknowledging this by trying to impute into it some sort of nuance about what it really means or the message/meaning it is intended to express. Indeed, this effort seems far more steeped in emotion than in a straightforward clinical assessment of the statement.

I acknowledge that the statement, being as it is facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced, can give rise to a response that has an emotional component. However, that does not negate or override the predominant clinical evaluation.

On 6/25/2026 at 3:58 PM, Calm said:
there is no point to me repeating my plain and direct and logical interpretation.

"All men are potential rapists" is "plain and direct." Extensive commentary intended to supply nuance and "interpretation" about how men "should" perceive this sentiment signals a departure from plain and ordinary language.

Some women declare "all men are potential rapists." That statement is clear and unambiguous in terms of how some women view "all men." I accept it as such.

This is about as superficial a comment as one could possibly make on the matter, and it's one Smac has been pushing for since his first comments on the thread. He constantly couches his comments in faux legal terms, and in my opinion, his legal assessments are very childish and uneducated, showing more about his lack of emotional maturity than any level of legal expertise.

Additionally, Smac used this thread to demonstrate repeatedly how inappropriately he treats women by use of a similar stereotype he attributes to others. His claims of victimhood status are disgusting. God help anyone who has ever suffered under his 'Bishop'ness.

[I Have Questions]

A couple of thoughts on this. SMAC might as well be asserting that “all men are potential bank robbers” or “all men are potential shoplifters”. It’s a meaningless and baseless assertion, except as an insight into SMAC’s lived experience within Mormonism. Are Mormon men a bit more creepy than within wider society? Possibly. Do creepy men seek out places where they can get away with being creepy? Absolutely.

[Craig Paxton]

Smac, and basically all of the regulars on that site, can kiss my arse

[Physics Guy]

If my impression is right, the dispute here was about whether social norms about things like men joining young women in hot tubs should be based on the presumption that all men are virtuous until proven otherwise. If we presume that, then we'll allow things that, however harmless they might be in themselves, make rape easier.

I don't want to make rape any easier at all for those goddamned bastards. I don't want the accepted social norms to let them get within three feet of rape before anyone complains. I want the social red flags to go up at a good thirty yards short of rape, so we have a clear field of fire.

That means having thirty-yard rules that apply to all men, because if we could tell who the rapists were in advance, we'd already have gotten rid of them. And that means basing our rules on the principle that all men are potential rapists.

It's not a statement at all about how many men actually are rapists or ever would be. It's giving the actual rapists no easy cover.