A female Mormon missionary has been caught asking an eleven year old for nude pictures. This is covered in more mainstream news outlets but this Reddit thread provides a lot more detail:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/zl6m28/missionary_in_virginia_gets_caught_soliciting/

It appears to be a male missionary. I'm not seeing where you got female.

The hilarious thing is he thought confessing to the mission president would fix it.

I came back to mention the same typo (haven't read the whole reddit yet). But just from the little bit I've already read...

This is yet another black eye for "special discernment" (IMO). Did God choose this kid to be a missionary, and to where he would go?


And, yes, that he thought the mission president was the authority to go to... yikes. (more of the same)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2022 12:09PM by Gordon B. Stinky.

Yep. It reinforces the overall problem that Mormons think they should contact the church and not law enforcement when there is a crime.

This has been a recent topic in the news about how Mormons (and Catholics among other religious types) try to solve things from within and attempt to avoid reporting it externally. This story with the missionary amplifies and reinforces that attitude. The public is seeing the church has not changed the messaging to the members: come to us first and keep it quiet. Above all, the church wants to avoid reputation damage, even when the right thing to do is skip church leaders and contact law enforcement first.

The Reddit write-up describes both mishies as male.

However, I agree that the MP would have done nothing.

I don't see this as "entrapment." That's no better than saying a woman deserved to be raped because of her attire. I don't care if she was walking down the street naked. No excuse or justification for rape.

That mishie just happened to contact a "decoy" 11 year old. He just as easily could have contacted a real 11 year old.


I hope he and the church get shafted.

Here is the video.

https://youtu.be/_QFgc1PWaek

It is a MALE.

I watched the video I thought Alex has called the missionary "Calvin".

If you watch the video you can see the missionaries deference to authority. He sees the man doing the interrogation/interview as an authority figure and keeps talking instead of just walking away.

The companion also could have pulled out is phone and called somebody. (The MP is a lawyer here who I am sure would have told this young man to shut up and stop talking)

At the end of the video the police do come out but I don't believe any arrests were made here

At 26 min in the video Calvin said "I had a sinus infection I was feverish". That was his excuse for his behavior. Wow!

Not justifying or excusing this, it was plainly wrong & WRONG...

our societies Stress about nudity is an artificial construct; most of nature's animals do fine without clothing but we humans aren't ready for that in many or most climates.

Families who are nudists are said to be better adjusted to their sexuality bc seeing another person nude isn't always connected with sex /sexuality: I have observed this first-hand at nudist parks where children including teens can socialize without a sexual component.

Many folks operate thinking that provocative clothing is much more sexy / alluring than nudity...

> Families who are nudists are said to be better
> adjusted to their sexuality . . .

That and $1.25 will get you a slice of pizza at Costco.

What you say may be true but you'd need to back it up with research from actual data systematically analyzed. Until then, you'll need extra for a Diet Pepsi.

I'm not sure what the point is. Nudists aren't pedophiles?

Obviously nudists ARE aroused at certain (appropriate) times; otherwise there'd be no second-generation nudists. And, nothing precludes them from becoming pedophiles.

my Jr. psychologist brain tells me that pedophelia is / results from mental illness so no one is 100% exempt.

OTOH, I also believe that strong family & other connections reduce a sense of loneliness that may contribute.

‘at appropriate times’ (circumstances) is another way of phrasing Context.

Everyone was naked before the earth fell. According to the Bible nudism is a higher state of existence. Instead of fig leaves wear a sombrero. There are things you don't want sunburned.

of your sombrero is an indicator of the size of your manhood. How much shade do you need?

Well, I read the reddit.
And watched the video.
I searched and apparently this isn't in the news yet.


FIRST, let me say that I am not "GordonBStinkley" on reddit! It's certainly close to my moniker here though.


Anyway, some random thoughts...


There was some talk on reddit about the efforts of non-law-enforcement group potentially hindering legal action (or something like that), but the interviewer struck me as pretty well trained.

The only redeeming bit for the mishie in question is that he ultimately blocked the "girl." Maybe he realized that it had gone too far. Or maybe he did it to hide the message from his companion (do messages from blocked people remain visible?). But the interviewer went to great lengths to box him in on certain issues (e.g. he knew the "girl" was 11; he knew "she" wasn't a scammer; he asked her for nude pics; etc).

If I read the reddit right, it would seem likely that the companion wasn't doing his part of what was expected, in terms of mutual accountability. I imagine that he'll take some heat for this happening right under his nose. And deservedly -- I hate to "defend" TSCC, but following the safety practices that were described on reddit would likely have prevented this. Of course, Calvin could also have made efforts to deceive his companion. But if it had been prevented, and if he's truly a pedophile, it would likely happen later anyway (like when he's at BYU, or a Bishop, or wherever some discerning muckety-muck's discernment discerns that he should be).


As others have noted, the deference to authority is very apparent. The interviewer had no legal authority, yet the mishies largely deferred to him (probably because of his demeanor, and coming across as an investigator of some sort). The property manager (I assume) was tougher on the interviewer than they were, and even told the mishies that they could leave (if I heard it right).

I grew up in church (Methodist), and then Episcopal for much of my adult life. I NEVER would have thought that ANY church has that kind of authority (to stand in the stead of civil authorities), probably because I was never taught to believe that, and no church ever tried to claim it, or even insinuate it.

TBF, the mishies are on a full-time mission, and Calvin was ostensibly doing TSCC's business when he encountered the 11 year old, so to some extent it was a problem "on the job," but it's not something where the answer is that the mission president counsels his subordinate to stay focused and stop goofing off (like it might actually be if he were flirting with a 19 year old). The fact that they, the companion in particular (because Calvin could be understandably squirming), didn't seem to recognize that this was a matter for civil action, not church review, is stupefying. OTOH, I've never been a mishie, and perhaps they are told to bring everything to the mission president.

Gordon B. Stinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> perhaps they are
> told to bring everything to the mission president.

Yes. This.

That was my observation with the missionaries, no matter what the issue was.

I discovered there was a lot of jiggery-pokery going on behind the scenes. The dishonesty of it astounded me. The senior mishie just laughed at one point, truly puzzled as to why I would get upset at the perfidy of some of the missionaries who were dishonest in several ways and that was only what I tripped over, who knows what else they were up to. How they could reconcile that behaviour with their message I could never puzzle out. Not that it was illegal or unnatural but it was two-faced. The godly little mishies by day, the principle-breaking (to put it kindly) at night. One incident made me cry and the oldest missionary was shocked that I would be so upset that it had happened (not one incident - ongoing), while the ZL reported it to the MP. That wasn't anything illegal but I got the way things worked: preach one thing, do another. Maybe that's just an inevitable human flaw.

I've related here before how inexplicably totally WEIRD it was for me when a sister missionary was very ill and permission had to be received from the MP for me to take her to my MD. I don't know what their hesitation was about (loss of control for an hour?) but the MD wanted to put her in hospital and they said no. That gave me the creepie-crawlies.

If there had been anything illegal that I was aware of I don't know what I would have done. I had formed a bond with the missionary group but there was a lot I didn't know about the church, its history, beliefs and practices, including the missionary program. I saw glimpses of things I wondered about but didn't see the full picture (until RfM- thanks for saving my sanity).

It was all so very strange.

I sincerely hope that if I had known anything about behaviour such as described in this thread I would have reported it to the relevant authorities (NOT the MP). I seriously disliked the MP in my area. But even if I hadn't, I hope/believe I would have opted to protect anyone who was being victimized, especially a minor.

The mission president is kind of the adult (even though in a legal sense all the missionaries as also adults), but he is the one you would go to if something happened, especially this one being a lawyer if you felt there was legal trouble.

I also felt this missionary was just saying stuff he hoped would end the conversation. He just wanted to get away from this, he know he was in trouble and was hoping telling the guy he will have a long talk with his MP about this would end it.

To be honest I am not sure if he was realizing that people were not made about him asking a "woman" for nudes, as that happens all the time, but the fact that this 'woman' was not a woman at all but an 11 year-old child.

If reddit is correct members are calling the stake president about this situation. What will happen to Calvin? Will he be sent home early from his mission or will he be transferred?

I recall once (loooooooooong time ago) seeing an appellate decision to the tune of 'asking once isn't harassment'.

The U.S. constitution doesn't differentiate between 'adults' and 'children / minors', but some court decisions & statutes do. This has been a situation with minor possession & use of firearms and a few other matters.


Most police & prosecutors seek multiple contacts including one in person for a lewd purpose before they will take action as in NBC series 'to catch a predator'

From the video this was not a one off "Hey baby send nudes" but a bit of an online relationship had developed.

He did say or offer to have an "adult relationship" and he would show her what he meant when they met up in person. I think the encounter with the Youtube content creator was the result of this set up to meet.

I am not sure what police can or can't do, but I think a church could remove him from public contact and flag his record so he is not put in a calling that has face time or alone time with minors.

"Harassment" isn't the issue here. It's soliciting sex from a minor and/or something related to child pornography

was this an adult (cop) baiting the missionary?

Did you watch the video?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> was this an adult (cop) baiting the missionary?

Not a police officer. A guy called Alex (missed his last name) with a group called Predator Poachers.

He mentioned several times at the end of the video that he had been involved in catching a firefighter who was arrested - I don't know any details.

I'd say there could be legal problems with entrapment, etc but I'm not an expert by any means.

He did kind of harangue the missionary (I still can't believe they didn't just walk away). I see what LW meant about deference to authority figures. The missionary just kept on and on answering the same questions over and over and his entire attitude was one of submission (as it came across to me). I would have asked who is this guy? And that he would admit to a potential life-wrecking sexually-based crime, on camera, and let himself be pressured into admitting it shows how passive and 'obedient' he has been trained to be (unless that's his basic nature anyway).

I have to say I thought the companion missionary, likely the senior of the two, interacted with the questioner as well as he could, keeping his cool, being courteous, and trying to civilly bring an end to the interaction. I don't know why, if he had all that in him, he let it continue for as long as it did.

The missionary being questioned comes across as being submissive and ready to admit to anything he was accused of.

I'm not saying it's right what he did but I don't really favour the way this guy outted him, starting with deception, when he's not a law enforcement official. He could well jeopardize chances of catching offenders and/or gaining convictions with his techniques.

Also, for a videographer type, he's not that talented, but that's obviously a secondary issue and basically shows my bias. I didn't go for his techniques, his language or this lengthy repetitious video.

I realize all that is completely secondary to the potentially serious nature of the incident in question.

Two quick observations.

"Entrapment" is only a problem when it arises from official action. The police and prosecutors are limited in how they can collect evidence. Even then, with some conditions they can undertake sting operations and lie to compromise a target. But the issue doesn't even arise in this case because it was not the government doing the entrapping.

As for the subject staying and continuing to engage with the entrapper, that too makes sense. The missionary realizes that he's in deep trouble if the incident comes to the attention of the police or, in some ways even more dangerously, the mission president. So he has a strong incentive to stay engaged and try to dissuade the authority figure from proceeding to report what happened.

Think of a child who is caught cheating at school. That kid will plead all sorts of things to avoid her parents being informed. Fear of what authority figures can do gives those figures a lot of power to elicit confessions and compromising material.

That is true of adults, too. I once sat on the jury in a case in which a man was accused of statutory rape of two girls. The police had a videotaped recording in which the defendant reacted indignantly to the suggestion that he had raped them both weekly for two years. That would be evil. He assured the investigators that he only raped the older one--and that only once a month. Surely that is a lot better than raping the girls both 100 times each; surely the cops can understand that.

Why would he incriminate himself in that way? Because he fears the power of the law and the courts but feels the need to compromise, to minimize, to prove he's reasonable.

"But mommy, I didn't steal five cookies. . . I only stole two."

Yes, that all makes sense.

I was mainly concerned that he would screw up the case for the actual cops.

But maybe that's not a realistic concern.

I think the wording is "just shy of 12 years old".

I'm not understanding why these missionaries would consent to speak with this questioner guy.

There seems to be some context missing.

And - are missionaries allowed to be on a computer and goofing off, especially with females? I doubt it so why would this mishie stand there, on video, trying to account for his behaviour to some non-official man he doesn't even know?

Mishie's excuse: "I'm just trying to spread the gospel."

Are they allowed to be on FB now due to pandemic restrictions? Or something?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2022 04:35PM by Nightingale.

The missionaries speaking with the questioner makes sense to me.

Mormons are indoctrinated to defer to authority figures and that man looks like he could be an undercover cop. Moreover missionaries are taught to defend the church, to explain and apologize in order to defuse possible problems.

I think that's the context you need.

Thanks, LW.

I still don't see why he's talking to this guy, answering his questions, incriminating himself.

The videographer isn't the most well-spoken guy and doesn't come across as an authority figure to me at all but I'm not a naive 20 yr old.

Maybe I need to shut up and watch the whole thing. So far, I can't quite follow the basic story.

"You're not dumb, Calvin. You're a Mormon missionary."

The questioner is a Mormon and he swears using the phrases "Jesus Christ" and "goddamn" and "f...".

I know the focus is what happened with the missionary but the whole thing is seriously bugging me.


Edit to add:

Oh, so the questioner is NOT Mormon, he admits at the end of the video.

OK, so I'm slow to get what's going on. And, I didn't realize until the end that it was the video guy who lured the missionary - it wasn't an actual young child.

He promised to blur the companion's face and edit out his name but it doesn't appear he did either.


Another Edit to ask:

Sorry for my ignorance here but if it wasn't really a child the missionary was conversing with online can he still be charged with an offence?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2022 05:15PM by Nightingale.

Ex-Mormon, anti-Mormon. He's using his understanding of the Mormon church to establish common ground and make the missionary see the possibility of a quiet agreement between people who have been through the same things.

Cops do that all the time. "Yeah, my wife's a bitch too. . . I probably shouldn't say this, but there've been a couple of times when I've had to knock some sense into her. . . Is that what happened with you guys last night?"

Yeah, I know anti/ex - his religious status doesn't matter.

It's just that he claimed in the early stages to be a Mormon.

It bugs me when people lie, that's all. And, being terminally naive, I believed him.

That's why I was shocked at his foul language.

I know, I'm incurable.

I believed him and still do. He knows the Mormon argot and is familiar with the basics of mission and church life. Is there a reason that I've missed to disbelieve him?

More generally, I giggle at your naivete. You seem uncomfortable--nay, unfamiliar--with the seamy side of human life and behavior. It's part of your charm.

On a related note, please do NOT consider dating EOD.

I think near the end that the interviewer admits to the companion that he's not a Mormon. (but it's been several hours since I watched it one time through at 1.5 speed...)

Interesting. Then he's a more cunning hunter than I had thought.

In any case Nightingale should still avoid EOD.

;-)

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting. Then he's a more cunning hunter than
> I had thought.

There may be some edgy/dicey bits, but he seemed to know what he was doing. With the 911 dispatch and the officer on the scene he pointed out to them that his group was involved in a similar situation nearby, and both seemed to know what he was talking about).


> In any case Nightingale should still avoid EOD.
>
> ;-)

I'll trust your judgment on that! ;)

Don't get me wrong. The most interesting man in the world is, well, interesting.

But when it comes to affairs of the heart, he's truly a dog.

I do think he tried to familiarize himself with Mormon missionaries. He claims to be from Provo (later admits TX?). And I think he realized that he was swearing too much, because he tried to switch back to a golly gee willikers vocabulary at one point.

So he's not adequately scammy?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believed him and still do. He knows the Mormon
> argot and is familiar with the basics of mission
> and church life. Is there a reason that I've
> missed to disbelieve him?

Yes, he knew some terminology, such as he called one of them 'elder', not out of respect but just to refer to the non-involved missionary.

He said towards the end of the video "Yeah, I'm not Mormon". He didn't say 'ex'.

He did seem familiar with missionary rules etc.

Maybe it's me who missed something. I didn't even know mishies were allowed to use computers now.


> I giggle at your naivete. You
> seem uncomfortable--nay, unfamiliar--with the
> seamy side of human life and behavior.

Yes. It's one of my worst flaws.

I have to get out more.


> On a related note, please do NOT consider dating
> EOD.

I wouldn't go up against his current squeeze, for sure.

Yes, Gordon straightened me out about the fact that the man is not really Mormon.

As for your naivete, don't change a thing. You are a refreshingly trusting and good person.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, Gordon straightened me out about the fact
> that the man is not really Mormon.

I was laughing at myself for getting so appalled at a Mormon using such language. As if some don't. Hahahahahaha. But yeah, I got at the end there that he wasn't LDS. I guess some undesirable things are necessary to say or do when you're seeking prey but I wasn't won over by the video guy. Still, if he *is* instrumental in preventing a tragedy (not yet confirmed) maybe that can be overlooked.


> As for your naivete, don't change a thing. You
> are a refreshingly trusting and good person.

It gets me in a lot of trouble.

One of the hardest things to accept about myself is that I get caught in the same traps over and over and over and over. Because "he wouldn't lie" (would he?) etc. Sheesh. In my case, it's all too true - you can't take the country out of the girl. (Except the girl part).

This is getting embarrassing because it's so personal, and I'm such a dolt, but just as an example: A man I really really really really really liked, a whole heckuva lot, propositioned me on the eve of his wedding. I sat down for a whole half hour trying to decide whether to say yes or no, when, of course, it should have been instant. It didn't help that I seriously disliked his fiancée.

So, men eh. Fortunately, not all of them. But a good few, definitely.

I know that type of interaction is not AT ALL the same as what the missionary in the video purportedly did. It's just that it's another example to me that I continue to get baffled over bad human behaviour. You'd think I'd know by now.

Those poor bishops lol.

https://www.newportnewsvirginiastakecommunity.com/williamsburg

One of my cousins husband is a bishop in Colorado. He is married with 8 children and has a full time job. If I remember there is a calling called "ward missionary" and the ward missionary works closely with the missionaries. Missionaries get send on missions without doing a background check prior to them leaving for their missions.

I read the Reddit post and watched the video. I'm not 100% convinced that Calvin thought he was genuinely talking to an 11-year old girl at first. Early on, he mentioned having already been "scammed" (trolled) 11 or 12 times. He expressed a great deal of concern about being trolled. IMO he may have thought that he was being trolled, and was simply exercising *really* bad judgment in trolling back the supposed girl by asking for nude photos, sex, etc.

That's the best possible spin, and even if that's the case, it shows horribly bad judgment and a gross departure from mission rules. Honestly, both missionaries come off as ridiculously naive. What made them think that talking to this interviewer, and being filmed, was in any way a good idea?

Of course, if Calvin genuinely thought he was talking to an 11-year old, then the situation needs to be dealt with by the police. But to me, it sounds like the police first need to figure out exactly what was going on. The interviewer comes off as rather sketchy to me.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> both
> missionaries come off as ridiculously naive. What
> made them think that talking to this interviewer,
> and being filmed, was in any way a good idea?

> Of course, if Calvin genuinely thought he was
> talking to an 11-year old, then the situation
> needs to be dealt with by the police. But to me,
> it sounds like the police first need to figure out
> exactly what was going on. The interviewer comes
> off as rather sketchy to me.

I agree with these comments, summer. The interviewer seems to me like a misguided guy who thinks he's doing good. In fact, he may actually mess up a legal case with his techniques. It may be better to not go on and on and on haranguing his target.

In the case of this missionary, it seems that he was pressured and led by the video guy, not the way a valid 'confession' is usefully or lawfully obtained.

The missionary comes across as saying anything the interviewer pressured him into saying.

As an aside, I realized, finally, that the missionaries are online trying to find potential converts - I guess due to Covid restrictions (?). I asked above why they're online. The missionaries I knew certainly weren't allowed to do that.

You'd think church leaders would figure out that's likely not the best idea. Too much temptation, in every way, for young people who are out and about in the world, if only virtually, likely for the first time in their lives, and living under such strict guidelines, and having been so sheltered previously within their religion.

Summer, I hope that the police will take all his electronics and search it for child pxxx. Yes,to me Calvin looks naive but looks can be deceiving. I hope the police will even check his electronics devices that he had prior going on a mission for bad stuff. Probably I am jumping the gun here and he is a good person but after some things I have read about LDS missionaries bad stuff can also happen while being on a mission.

Whatever happens, life isn't going to be a bowl of cherries for him now.

Gotta watch yourself online.

If he is guilty or is found to have certain propensities it's good he's stopped now.

I just don't love the video guy but he seems to be on a mission himself, one that could do some good perhaps but also could turn out badly for him. Maybe he knows what he's doing but it's quite a risk for many reasons.

As for the missionary, I hope he gets some useful help, whatever he needs, to deal with this if the allegations are true and also to deal with the major fallout in his life because of this video. There is quite a risk, it would seem, that he could end up feeling quite hopeless because where do you go from this. Not the way you want to start out in your young adult life.

I found Calvin on Facebook. The video on 39:11 says his name. On his Facebook page it says works as full time missionary.

Did you send a friend request? ;)

Hell no. I have considered sending his grandma a friendship request and send her the link to the YouTube video of her grandchild. Lol no I am not like that. The mission president can deal with Calvin.

Gordon B. Stinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you send a friend request? ;)


About 2 minutes ago I tried to look up Calvin on Facebook and it says now "Facebook page isn't available".

I’m not surprised. You’re probably not the only one who found it. He may be getting some rude messages.

The lds church is fascinating. How they want to appear "wholesome and pure".

https://americancrimejournal.com/operation-underground-railroad-retains-controversial-firm-kirton-mcconkie-threatens-legal-action-against-acj/

The video got posted on 12/09/2022 and already has over 50k views. More bad publicity for the lds church.