Skip to comments.Mormon Church Denies Prior Knowledge of Susan Brock Affair With Teen Boy, Which is a Lie
Posted on 04/19/2011 1:03:44 PM PDT by Colofornian
The Mormon Church claims it never knew one of its members, 49-year-old Susan Brock, the somewhat-estranged wife of Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock, was sexually abusing a teenage boy before her arrest...
This, according to court documents obtained by New Times, is a lie.
The church issued the following statement...
"Any allegation that Church leaders knew of abuse but did nothing is inaccurate and offensive...When abuse does occur we work to see that it is reported to the authorities."
According to court docs, the relationship was uncovered by the victim's girlfriend, who discovered sex-themed text messages...on the boy's phone. The girl told her parents, who contacted Susan Brock, as well as her county supervisor husband, to tell them they knew of the abuse.
Rather than call the police, Fulton Brock called his bishop at the Mormon Church, to whom Susan Brock admitted having...sex...with the boy.
When the boy's parents were told...rather than immediately call police, they also contacted their bishop in the Mormon Church.
As the father of the victim...told police, after meeting with Church leaders, he was "under the impression" cops would be called. But they weren't -- as the boy's father was waiting for Church leaders to alert authorities...he figured he'd just call them on his own.
But that wasn't the first time the Mormon Church learned of suspicions that Brock was abusing the boy.
...about a year before Susan Brock's arrest, the Brocks and the victim's parents met with leaders in the Mormon Church. The topic of conversation: suspicions that Susan Brock was having sex with the teenage victim.
Nobody called police...not Fulton Brock, not the boy's parents, and not the Mormon Church.
The abuse...continued for a year before police were notified -- and when police were notified, it wasn't by Mormon Church officials...
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com ...
From the article: Nobody called police...not Fulton Brock, not the boy's parents, and not the Mormon Church. The abuse...continued for a year before police were notified -- and when police were notified, it wasn't by Mormon Church officials.
(Hey, early 20th century & late 19th-century Mormons didn't "tattle" on polygamists breaking the law by taking an extra wife...what's the difference in the way they set up neighborhoods of refuge for sexual law-breakers then and now?)
Especially since this "not reporting to the authorities" seems to be an ongoing theme in the Mormon church.
December, 2010: Did fellow Mormons cover up officer's baby molestations?
March, 2011: Sacramento News & Review
Is your church held to the same standard of perfection that you hold the Mormon Church? Could it POSSIBLY be that wires got crossed which lead to the failure of all involved to call the police? A Mormon bishop would not call the police because it would breach confidentiality of confessed sins, which would lead to people chosing not to confess them. The person commiting a criminal act would be strongly urged to confess to the police at the risk of their church membership for not doing so. But a Bishop would not breach that confidentiality. Go worry about the short-comings in your own faith instead of always trying to demean the LDS faith. Or is that why you obsess over these things, to cover up your own religion’s flaws?
I bet if we looked into your own religion not reporting abuses, we’d find plenty. But the media won’t cover that, or your own religion just hasn’t been exposed in that regard. And in how many instances have Mormon authorities acted as opposed to 4 you cite where mistakes MAY have been made?? Why don’t you get all the facts before rushing to judgment?
Thanks! I’ve bookmarked these other articles from the ‘Phoenix New Times’ for a later read:
Jan Brewer Vetoes Humiliating “Birther Bill.” Gov Finds Penis Descriptions To Get on Ballot Goes Too Far
By James King
Pot Expo Draws Smaller-Than-Expected Crowd, But Still Creates Good Buzz
By Ray Stern
KPHO Thinks Ugly Dog Might be Chupacabra
By James King
This just in: a naked leprechaun was spotted trying to buy crystal meth from a north Phoenix drug dealer early Saturday morning —
Ask a Mexican on Manifest Destiny and Going to Museums
By Gustavo Arellano
I grant you a magic wand; now, tell me how do we right the wrongs of Sam Houston and Manifest Destiny?
Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Law in One Handy Guide
By Niki D’Andrea Thursday, Apr 14 2011
As Promised, Cop-Evading Public Masturbator Tiberias Foster
By James King,
The Pink Negro: As an Ivy League lawyer, is President Barack Obama hard enough to confront the evil personified by Sheriff Joe Arpaio?
By: Michael Lacey
My church doesn't pretend to have 1/5th or more of its membership acting as "gods-in-embyro"...a fave term many Mormon leaders have referenced the Mormon "faithful" as...
Should we not expect more from "gods-in-embyro?"
My church doesn't pretend to have a "living prophet" guiding the church as the actual voice of God.
Should we not expect more from a church that claims to have a Moses in their midst - operating at the helm of all of its operations?
(Yeah, well click on that third link -- in the article about "Brother Curtis" in that Sacramento paper -- re: how the Mormon lawyers continually distorted the "clergy privilege" argument in that case...the author of the "Brother Curtis" book lays that out real well)
BTW, have you applied this advice to yourself? Do you worry about the short-comings in your own faith before you go on FR and demean other posters' religious comments? Or is it ONLY YOU that has the open free license to offer religious-based critiques? You seem to be able to readily demean...so what are we to believe? The message you preach -- or your actions?
Well will consistency find you? When will you offer up actions that actually back up what you say?
(Of course, that's possible. But, then, when that happens, you don't go around after the fact touting lies in press-release statements -- like the AZ Mormon church did in this case that.."When abuse does occur we work to see that it is reported to the authorities"...do you?)
Wait a minute. In a story a few months ago they said they did know but were trying to deal with internally or some such thing.
I don’t think the poster holds Mormonism to a standard of perfection, as you say...
On the contrary, he is pointing out that even though Mormonism spends millions on PR firms to convince others that it is perfect, it is no such thing.
It sure bothers Mormons when Christians quote Mormon leaders and post facts, evidence and articles that show it in daylight.
That must reveal deep seated insecurity that the (Mormon) emporer is naked.
Rather than call the police, Fulton Brock called his bishop at the Mormon Church, to whom Susan Brock admitted having...sex...with the boy.
So they did exactly the same thing Catholic Bishops did for decades, then.
Go to the first link in post #1...you'll see a discussion in that Idaho case about all these lay people who knew about that incident.
You see, the Mormon church doesn't have any "professional" leaders. They're ALL lay leaders. And so whenever any of these lay leaders claim knowledge to such abuse, the Mormon legal reps & hierarchy rushes in and claims "clergy privilege" -- no matter who they are.
So you can't even tell in the Mormon church where "clergy privilege" begins and where it ends.
You are correct both groups - huge fail.
They won’t because the perp is a fellow cultist.
They’re ALREADY saints, don’t cha know?
The molester isn’t here to be spoken to. I would THINK it might be obvious that I condemn molestation. If you can produce her, then I’ll be glad to have a little chat with her about the evils of sexual abuse. Until then, I have addressed someone who is present to be addressed about the evils of religious bigotry, though I’m chosing to ignore their other postings because frankly they are too steeped in hatred to be convinced of the wrong they’re doing. You might want to address the unChristian and unAmerican nature of religious bigotry too because my friend, it’s coming down to a struggle between the believers vs. the unbelievers in this world. But those who make themselves tools of Satan through religious bigotry want us to take our eye off the struggle we should be fighting-—against the tide of atheism and unbelief-—and focus it instead on fighting one another. That only benefits the Lucifer.
Are you approving of this tactic in the case of a 14-year-old who is sexually abused?
Two seperate bishops failed to notify either the law or Child Services of this pedophilia. Also, Susan Brock's daughter was arrested on similar pedophilia charges involving the same boy.
This is noting but an attempt to cover up by the mormon church leadership.
It's been in the news for months in Phoenix, since October 2010....and the mormon church is just NOW making a statement. The facts that have come to light are disgusting and the church didn't say a word until the court records were made public.
Interesting little speech.
You can build strawmen to your heart's content, but in essence it appears that you are trying to give a pass to the mormon church for the fact that two seperate bishops withheld information of pedophilia from law enforcement and child service officials because the wife of a prominent mormon was involved.
Is it ONLY in MORMONland that a teenage 'boy', gettin' it ON! with two older women, is considered a VICTIM?
Where would the MORMON Religious Organization be without it?
I noticed the 317 area code instantly as being Central Indiana.
Sure ‘nuf; an INDIANAPOLIS outfit: cross bearer ministry
These folks are not here to minterogate, either, but their WORDS live on - NEVER having been retracted or apologized for.
Joseph Smith continues: "for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" (from 1:12). "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (, p.270).Questions put to Joseph Smith: "'Do you believe the Bible?' [Smith:]'If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do'. When asked 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons'? [Smith replied] 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (, p. 119).Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" ( 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" ( 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" ( 8:199); "And who is there that acknowledges [God's] hand? ...You may wander east, west, north, and south, and you cannot find it in any church or government on the earth, except the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (, vol. 6, p.24); "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" ( 10:230).Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (, p. 255).Pratt also said: "This great apostasy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now" (, vol.18, p.44) and: "But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of people Christian Churches, because they profess to be ...But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance" (, 18:172).President John Taylor stated: "Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (, vol. 6, p.167); "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom." (, 10:127).James Talmage said: "A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ". (, p.182).President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (, p.266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (, vol. 3, p.282).More recent statements by apostle Bruce McConkie are also very clear: "Apostasy was universal...And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" (, vol 3, p.265); "Thus the signs of the times include the prevailing apostate darkness in the sects of Christendom and in the religious world in general" (The Millennial Messiah, p.403); "a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (, p.132); "virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (, p.269); "Gnosticism is one of the great pagan philosophies which antedated Christ and the Christian Era and which was later commingled with pure Christianity to form the apostate religion that has prevailed in the world since the early days of that era." (, p.316).President George Q. Cannon said: "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (Gospel Truth, p.324).President Wilford Woodruff stated: "the Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called" (, vol. 2, p.196).
So every single lay Mormon knew about this incident? Every single one?
Oh, sure, you condemn molestation...but since when has this thread mentioned any "molester?"
ALL: Note how this poster, MissesBush, comes on this thread minus any condemnation of this repeat pedophile rapist...let's size up how she has referenced this repeat pedophile rapist:
* Post #2, sent. 2: One of those "people" who confesses "sins" [so repeated pedophile rape from a rapist is reduced to mere "sin" status]
* Post #2, sent. 3: Doesn't reference Brock -- as she talks about some hypothetical "criminal" -- "person committing a criminal act WOULD..."
* Post #3: No reference to Brock
* Post #20, sent. 1: MissesBush labels a repeat pedophile rapist as a "molester"...[more reductionism advocacy on her part]
* Post #20, sent. 2: She finally gets around to addressing "the evils of sexual abuse"
Then, instead of condemning repeat pedophile rapists, she takes out her venom on those who highlight such rapists...and the fact that the Mormon church in AZ could have pre-empted a whole year of such abuse had it acted...
ALL of her posts -- especially post #20 -- shows rampant & extreme intolerance of religious comments made by FReepers...all in the name of supposed "tolerance!"
If she was so tolerant herself, her words would show that...they don't...she shows the very religious bigotry she accuses others of...which means by her very own standard she becomes a "tool of Satan" revealed by how she engages in "fighting one another" -- other FReepers! If she was truly a tolerant person, she wouldn't be so intolerant of others' comments on this thread...
...She wouldn't engage in such a fighting stance with fellow conservatives...
...And she wouldn't go around calling people such highly inflammatory provocative language like "tools of Satan..."
Instead, she would model charitable behavior toward those religious vantage points she disagrees with...but she doesn't...and therefore reveals that by her words & post-actions.
Therefore, while she won't tolerate a few critiques of the Mormon church...she basically gives almost a condemnation-free pass of a repeat pedophile rapist...
Tell us, MissesBush...do you regularly engage in identity politics when it comes to Mormon criminals...or do you do this with repeat Pedophile rapists of all stripes?
Hpw many are enough for you? A couple hundred thousand? Fifteen? Two?
First of all, we'll cede that LDS Bishops are "clergy", even though they are unpaid "volunteers" and have no real training, unlike Catholic and protestant clergy who have college training.
Now we have to understand in what context clergy may claim confidentiality. The gulity party must have come to the clergy who must have been acting in official capacity and confessed a crime. No one else may have been present except other clergy.
Now we'll specifically talk about child abuse. If a member of the clergy has a reaonable suspicion of abuse being committed, even by his congregant, he is REQUIRED by law to report to police.
If he hears about it through a third party he is REQUIRED to report.
If anyone else was present besides other clergy when abuse was confessed, or if it was revealed in a non-official capacity, he is REQUIRED to report.
And in 26 states, INCLUDING ARIZONA, even if child abuse was reported withing the usual bounds of clergy-penitent confines, HE IS STILL REQUIRED BY LAW TO REPORT.
check it out here: Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect
When abuse does occur we work to see that it is reported to the authorities."
You either report it or not. You don't "work to see" that it is reported.
I'll cede no such thing, thank you. You can cede it if you like, but I won't.
There's another story here about a bunch of Jesuits who molested hundreds of native Alaskan kids over decades. The "Church", Catholic in this case, settled the case for over 1.5 million dollars.
That doesn't mean that Catholicism is false, and it doesn't mean that the entire Catholic Church "knew" about it. Now this Colofornian person, in my opinion, is more than just a little bit disturbed. She seems to enjoy having my posts yanked rather than responding to me directly even tho I ping her every time I mention her, as required by the rules of the forum.
Her opinion is that Mormonism is somehow evil and she regularly posts stories like this to back that up. Now I just mentioned that story posted here about those Jesuits sexually abusing children. But I don't use that to indict the entire Catholic Church.
So I'll say it again. In my opinion Colofornian isn't much of a Christian. She's violating the Commandment against bearing false witness against another.
She has no evidence that the entire Mormon Church knew of these horrible crimes and neither do you. Colofornian hates Mormonism, that's the bottom line here. If she had any guts she'd respond directly to me instead of having my posts yanked. But, she won't do that.
I guess that's easier than attempting any logical point by point refutation of what I have to say. So Colofornian, go ahead. Go whine to the Mod about how mean I am.
I have to work in the morning so it's off to bed for me.
I thought it was COURTESY.
You err in your evaluation.
EVERY Christian organization says that MORMONism is a heresy.
MORMONism's own WRITINGS prove this fact.
Her 'opinion' is not an OPINION at all.
We return you now to the TOPIC of the thread: The MORMON 'authorities' LIED!
What did YOUR post say?
(You may send it, verbatum, in FREEPMAIL and it'll go thru to me; I think.)
In which reply number does she state that it did?
THIS is the TITLE of the thread; lifted from an EXTERNAL source: Phoenix New Times
You need to write to THEM and complain about the LIE.
In case you don't recognize the title of this post, it is part of President Hinckley's answer to a reporter's question that appeared in the August 4 1997 issue of Time magazine. The reporter referenced the King Follett discourse. The answer supplied and the manner in which it was delivered caused the reporter to draw some false conclusions about a very important doctrine.
In that discourse, the prophet Joseph Smith said, "If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visibleI say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in formlike yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man." (See also D&C 130:22)
The article referred to Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "As man is now, God once was; as God now is, man may become." The reporter said, "God the Father was once a man as we are. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing." President Hinckley was then asked, "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"
The bothersome reply
"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."
The reporter wrote, "On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain." That's an unfortunate conclusion. Of course I wasn't at the interview and neither were you but I'll bet the reporter mistook careful thoughtfulness for uncertainty. This doctrine is indeed deep territory and not something that is taught outside the LDS Church.
An earlier and similar interview
The San Francisco Chronicle, published an interview with President Hinckley in April of 1997. The reporter asked, "There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormon's believe that God was once a man?" President Hinckley responded, "I wouldn't say that. There is a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'"
He then said, "Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." The reporter pounced on this. "So you're saying that the church is still struggling to understand this? " President Hinckley responded, "Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly."
President Hinckley's response
President Hinckley said in October 1997 General Conference: "I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine.
"I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church." And there lies the whole point of my post today. Some members did indeed become a little concerned by the exchanges they read in the press reports of those interviews.
Does the Church still teach this?
I know this is old news but it still bothers some people when they discover the anti-Mormon attacks floating around on the Internet. President Hinckley was right. We really don't know much about how our Heavenly Father became a God. The idea that he passed through a mortal probationary state like you and me is certainly not documented in any scripture of which I know.
However, it is still taught. In the Gospel Principles manual in the chapter on exaltation we read, "Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46)."
Summary and conclusion
I don't know why this should bother anyone. The doctrine is true. Joseph Smith knew a whole lot more about this than I do. President Hinckley also knew a whole lot more about this doctrine than he was willing to share with reporters who did not have the background to understand it. It must have been difficult for President Hinckley to hold back and not teach it in those interviews.
It didn't bother me when I read the interviews back in 1997 and it doesn't bother me today. However, I know it does bother some people. We each have trials of our faith. I have never depended on an intellectual understanding of the gospel in order to accept it and live it. There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.
There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.
Excellent cach, TMF.
Either apologize for your false assumption leading to a false accusation or you're on permanent ignore -- something I'll encourage others to do as well. (You gotta be held responsible for your loose keyboard mouth sometimes; and if you don't like the mod holding you accountable, I'll reinforce it by asking for an apology)
As for your other accusation, I didn't write the article. If you gotta a beef with how it was written, contact the writer & the publisher.
Mind boggling that there are those so willing to defend mormonISM that they will attack posters rather than condemn an admitted child rapist, which the article is about. place marker
He probably beats his wife too...magritte
I suppose that was meant to be funny, however I am failing to see how child rape is funny. I also am not amused by people who fail to condemn child rape but instead focus on attacking the poster of the article.
Your post 35 attributes motive to another Freeper and reads her mind and for that reason it is "making it personal."
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
Wow, what a nitpicky bunch of nonsense. You don’t like the way something is worded, as if there’s any difference between working to cause something to happen and causing something to happen? You people are a joke. The LDS Church cannot do anything right in your eyes even right down to the wording of statements that “torque you off.” You people are so full of hate and bigotry towards the LDS Church you have no credibility. You will nitpick ANYTHING the LDS Church does. Go practice your faith and stop obsessing about the wording in a statement released by some other faith. I’ve always said if you have to practice anything by tearing down something else, you are showing a distinct lack of confidence in your own beliefs.
Do you honestly believe that anyone on this thread is “for” child rape? C’mon, this thread wasn’t posted for that reason and you know it...it’s just an anti-Mormon slam thread...magritte
NOW you are catching on!
That heretical Religious Organization was started by a lying conman, deceived by two LYING 'personages' and continued by opportunistic 'leaders' who are no more 'prophetic' than my GOATS!
I prophecy that it's time to EAT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.