When a sexual harasser’s dad is in the First Presidency...

[Not Buying It]

Did not know that President Thomas S. Monson’s son Thomas L. Monson was fired from Leucadia National Corp. for sexual harrassment:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/1651650 ... of_sexual/

Apparently his actions included the following:

In her lawsuit, Bottomly claimed Monson had become obsessed with her "personally and sexually" during her employment at AIB from 1990 to 1993. Bottomly said she was forced to listen to "stories of the most intimate facts of his sexual relations with his wife [and he] repeatedly asked about her sex life." Monson, the suit claimed, stalked her, tried to kiss her, searched her belongings, listened to her conversations and repeatedly propositioned her. He also wrote love notes and left "lewd" materials on her desk, including a drawing of two people having sex, according to court documents.

Nothing against his dad, the actions of children are not always reflective of the parents. However, I find it troubling that when you have a high position in the Church, you can hook your kid up with a lucrative position at Kirton McConkie eight years after he’s fired for sexual harassment: https://www.kmclaw.com/attorneys-Thomas-Monson.html

Bottom line - we as a Church reward people who are fired for sexual harassment - as long as their parent is in the First Presidency. If it is an MTC President, we look the other way and go after the victim. But if it is an ordinary regular member, we bring the hammer down, either with overwhelming amounts of shaming and guilt, or a Court of Love if deemed necessary. All members are not equal, and don’t ever think they are.

[Not Buying It]

I mean, let that sink in for a minute - the Church’s go-to law firm hired a guy who was fired for sexual harassment, and hired him for no reason other than his father was in the First Presidency. This is the same law firm that answers the phone when a bishop calls the Church’s abuse hotline - does someone fired for sexual harassment seem like a good fit for the Church’s law firm?

[hiding in plain sight]

I mean, let that sink in for a minute - the Church’s go-to law firm hired a guy who was fired for sexual harassment, and hired him for no reason other than his father was in the First Presidency. This is the same law firm that answers the phone when a bishop calls the Church’s abuse hotline - does someone fired for sexual harassment seem like a good fit for the Church’s law firm?

It sounds like he was just doing what bishops are doing in private interviews. So that can't be bad? Right?? //sarcasm//

[slavereeno]

Another Log on the fire...

[Archimedes]

All members are not equal, and don’t ever think they are.

This is a really good point. An attorney not of royal LDS lineage and a history of sexual harassment would never be considered for that position. It is too much liability for a company to expose itself to. Pun intended.

[Corsair]

I mean, let that sink in for a minute - the Church’s go-to law firm hired a guy who was fired for sexual harassment, and hired him for no reason other than his father was in the First Presidency.

Could an apologist have a good explanation? Could anyone provide a faithful response? Hold my beer...

"This is not necessarily some veiled nepotism. Young Brother Monson might have been eminently qualified and had planned this move for some time. We don't know if the charges against him may or may not be valid since harassment cases are always complicated. But since he was hired by Kirton McConkie, we have to assume that they would have done their due diligence on Brother Monson during the hiring process. Hiring a known abuser is dangerous and we have heard nothing since them. It could have been false accusations and Brother Monson simply chose discretion over valor in what would have been a time consuming and expensive process of litigation to stay in the same company with his accuser."

If apologetics was not bereft of objective truth and also paid so poorly, I'll bet I could have a lucrative career.

[moksha]

Did Monson Jr. ever go through Church disciplinary proceedings for those collective misdeeds?

[mooseman]

I'll attempt another apologetic angle...

Is your objection that he is again working, or who he is working for? Should a persons entire profession be derailed and destroyed because of a past alleged incident? Perhaps you feel he doesnt deserve a second chance, and should remain unemployed or under employed for the of rest of his life?

You assume he got the job simply because of his father -not the quality of his work, his interview skills, ect. Did you know it was the ONLY place he applied? Or interviewed? Nothing implies he was bad at his job, or incapable of doing it. Nothing implies he recieves special treatment, or perks because of his dad. He was hired to do a job, and he does it. KnM cared that much about who his father is, why didn't they hire him out of school? Clearly, he fit a need at that time he didnt before and it wouldn't be who his father is since that hadnt changed.

It seems everyone is upset because he did what we all do when looking for a new job, network with friends of friends and family to find an opening, sell himself, and take the best offer given. What standard are you proposing he be held to that is so different from what you home yourself to? He made a mistake, yes, but he still needs to work!

Apologist mode off

How was that?

[Anon70]

I'll attempt another apologetic angle...

Is your objection that he is again working, or who he is working for? Should a persons entire profession be derailed and destroyed because of a past alleged incident? Perhaps you feel he doesnt deserve a second chance, and should remain unemployed or under employed for the of rest of his life?

You assume he got the job simply because of his father -not the quality of his work, his interview skills, ect. Did you know it was the ONLY place he applied? Or interviewed? Nothing implies he was bad at his job, or incapable of doing it. Nothing implies he recieves special treatment, or perks because of his dad. He was hired to do a job, and he does it. KnM cared that much about who his father is, why didn't they hire him out of school? Clearly, he fit a need at that time he didnt before and it wouldn't be who his father is since that hadnt changed.

It seems everyone is upset because he did what we all do when looking for a new job, network with friends of friends and family to find an opening, sell himself, and take the best offer given. What standard are you proposing he be held to that is so different from what you home yourself to? He made a mistake, yes, but he still needs to work!

Apologist mode off

How was that?

I mean, let that sink in for a minute - the Church’s go-to law firm hired a guy who was fired for sexual harassment, and hired him for no reason other than his father was in the First Presidency.

Could an apologist have a good explanation? Could anyone provide a faithful response? Hold my beer...

"This is not necessarily some veiled nepotism. Young Brother Monson might have been eminently qualified and had planned this move for some time. We don't know if the charges against him may or may not be valid since harassment cases are always complicated. But since he was hired by Kirton McConkie, we have to assume that they would have done their due diligence on Brother Monson during the hiring process. Hiring a known abuser is dangerous and we have heard nothing since them. It could have been false accusations and Brother Monson simply chose discretion over valor in what would have been a time consuming and expensive process of litigation to stay in the same company with his accuser."

If apologetics was not bereft of objective truth and also paid so poorly, I'll bet I could have a lucrative career.

You two were so good it was a little scary!

[wtfluff]

How was that?

Kind of made me want to puke, so with your apologist hat on: Mission Accomplished!

[Archimedes]

If apologetics was not bereft of objective truth and also paid so poorly, I'll bet I could have a lucrative career.

No doubt. I thought you would go hardline with the Blame the Accuser gambit. You didn't even need that..

Great work. Sorry, I drank your beer.

[slavereeno]

wow Corsair and Mooseman, you make it look easy.

[moksha]

While not officially endorsed by the Church, the Holy Ghost runs its own reclamation service. Just don't mention this during a bishop's interview. It might be viewed as heretical.

[Not Buying It]

Wow - some of your LDS apologetic powers are truly impressive.

You know, it’s not that I don’t believe people should have second chances, it just bothers me when second chances aren’t distributed equitably. I know for a fact Kirton McConkie wouldn’t have been so generous with someone who wasn’t Thomas S. Monson’s son. The Church isn’t forgiving to those who go astray - unless you are well-connected.

[Reuben]

Wow - some of your LDS apologetic powers are truly impressive.

You know, it’s not that I don’t believe people should have second chances, it just bothers me when second chances aren’t distributed equitably. I know for a fact Kirton McConkie wouldn’t have been so generous with someone who wasn’t Thomas S. Monson’s son. The Church isn’t forgiving to those who go astray - unless you are well-connected.

How do you know they're not distributed equitably?

As an apologist, I insist on holding you to a much higher standard of evidence than I hold my church.

[Corsair]

wow Corsair and Mooseman, you make it look easy.

Perhaps, but it was not easy to take that long shower and scrub off the overwhelming apologist funk.

[Not Buying It]

Wow - some of your LDS apologetic powers are truly impressive.

You know, it’s not that I don’t believe people should have second chances, it just bothers me when second chances aren’t distributed equitably. I know for a fact Kirton McConkie wouldn’t have been so generous with someone who wasn’t Thomas S. Monson’s son. The Church isn’t forgiving to those who go astray - unless you are well-connected.

How do you know they're not distributed equitably?

As an apologist, I insist on holding you to a much higher standard of evidence than I hold my church.

Well, Mr. Pretend Apologist, you have me there. Maybe it had nothing to do with who his Dad was, it may well be that Kirton McConkie makes a policy of hiring people who were fired for sexual harassment. Because that actually would make a tremendous amount of sense if you look at the Church's legal strategy in dealing with the Joseph Bishop fiasco.

[Reuben]

Wow - some of your LDS apologetic powers are truly impressive.

You know, it’s not that I don’t believe people should have second chances, it just bothers me when second chances aren’t distributed equitably. I know for a fact Kirton McConkie wouldn’t have been so generous with someone who wasn’t Thomas S. Monson’s son. The Church isn’t forgiving to those who go astray - unless you are well-connected.

How do you know they're not distributed equitably?

As an apologist, I insist on holding you to a much higher standard of evidence than I hold my church.

Well, Mr. Pretend Apologist, you have me there. Maybe it had nothing to do with who his Dad was, it may well be that Kirton McConkie makes a policy of hiring people who were fired for sexual harassment. Because that actually would make a tremendous amount of sense if you look at the Church's legal strategy in dealing with the Joseph Bishop fiasco.

You know, I know that burn was directed at Mr. Pretend Apologist Reuben, but I felt it anyway. Bravo!

[alas]

Wow - some of your LDS apologetic powers are truly impressive.

You know, it’s not that I don’t believe people should have second chances, it just bothers me when second chances aren’t distributed equitably. I know for a fact Kirton McConkie wouldn’t have been so generous with someone who wasn’t Thomas S. Monson’s son. The Church isn’t forgiving to those who go astray - unless you are well-connected.

How do you know they're not distributed equitably?

As an apologist, I insist on holding you to a much higher standard of evidence than I hold my church.

Well, Mr. Pretend Apologist, you have me there. Maybe it had nothing to do with who his Dad was, it may well be that Kirton McConkie makes a policy of hiring people who were fired for sexual harassment. Because that actually would make a tremendous amount of sense if you look at the Church's legal strategy in dealing with the Joseph Bishop fiasco.

There is one of the blogs currently discussing the abysmal number of female partners at K&M. Perhaps this explains it.

[deacon blues]

Is this an example of fake news? I'm asking because I can find very little about the alleged harassment.