Two LDS Missionaries Accused Of "Defiling" A 14-Year-Old Girl In Ghana; Both Plead Not Guilty

Update April 15th 2011: Accra High Court reverses conviction of these two missionaries, both freed. Updated post HERE.

On June 30th, 2010, PeaceFMOnline reports that two missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been formally accused of "defiling" a 14-year-old girl in Ghana. An earlier story was posted on June 23rd by MyJoyOnline.

Omale Ojonugwu Uwa, a Nigerian, and Thatayonaone Keeng, a Botswanan, have been arraigned before an Accra Circuit court for allegedly defiling a 14 year old girl. The complainant is a seamstress who lives with the victim as a housekeeper at Odorkor in the same house as the accused missionaries. According to the prosecutor, on February 1st, 2010, the 1st accused (Uwa) pushed the victim onto a mattress and forcibly had sex with her after asking her whether she had had sex before or had been kissed before. After he finished, the 2nd accused (Keeng) also had sexual intercourse with her and both warned her not to disclose the sexual act to anyone.

The prosecutor further stated that Uwa had sex with the victim on three occasions, most notably on March 10th, while Keeng had sex with the victim on two occasions. A witness who lives in the same house with both the accused and the victim, and who is also a personal friend of the complainant, told the court that she informed the complainant that she should be careful with the house help as she has been seeing the victim going to the missionaries' room and staying there for prolonged periods.

The case was reported to the Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit (DOVVSU) where a medical form was issued the victim to go for a medical examination. The test proved her hymen had been broken, after which the two missionaries were arrested. They first appeared in court on June 23rd where they pleaded not guilty. The case has been adjourned by Judge Mrs. Georgina Mensah Datsa to July 7th while the accused missionaries remain in police custody.

Update July 6th: Mr. Daniel Blankson, the victim’s guardian, testified to the court on July 5th that he became furious when the victim told him that the two missionaries had defiled her on several occasions. He said he had the whole interrogation with the victim taped and recorded on his mobile phone as evidence. In addition, the birth weighing card of the victim was tendered as the third exhibit by the prosecuting witness. During cross examination, defense counsel objected to the weighing card and proposed that a birth certificate would be more appropriate, but the judge overruled the objection, stating that the weighing card contains all medical records and valuable information of a child after birth and is therefore a more credible document.

Update August 6th: Omale Ojonugwnuwa was convicted of conspiracy and defilement and sentenced to 10 years in prison while Thatayaone Keeng was convicted of defilement and sentenced to 7 years in prison.

Update April 15th 2011: Conviction of the two missionaries reversed by Accra High Court, missionaries freed.

Page 84 (as listed on the text) of the 1998 LDS Handbook of Instructions (not the most current edition, but still representative) spells out housing arrangement for missionaries:

Housing

Mission presidents and stake presidents confer to determine whether and to what extent Church members may rent parts of their homes to missionaries. Such housing must meet the requirements outlined in the following paragraphs. Each housing arrangement requires the approval of the mission president.

When missionaries rent part of a member's home, they must have living quarters separate from the members' living area, a private bedroom with two beds, and a private bathroom. They also should have access to separate cooking and food storage facilities. They should not have access to a television or radio.

Elders may live in homes where married couples or widowers live. They may not live in homes where teenage or single adult females live or where the husband is away frequently. Sister missionaries may live in homes where married couples or widows live, They may not live in homes where teenage or single adult males live.

Thus if the media story is correct, the missionaries' living arrangement was in violation of LDS Church guidance, because they shouldn't have been living in the same house as a 14-year-old girl. The rules have been promulgated by the Church to provide protection against situations like this. It is, of course, also possible that the girl was raped by someone else and that she's blaming it on the missionaries because of threats by the actual rapist. According to a comment appended to this post, the two missionaries were in the same apartment complex but not in the same apartment as the victim. In addition, the two missionaries were not formally assigned to be companions to one another.

What will happen now is that the mission president will suspend their missionary activities, but no formal Church discipline will be levied against them until they either confess or are found guilty. It is possible that even if they are found not guilty, Ghana could choose to expel the two to their home countries, at which point their missions are over.

LDS Reaction To Apostate Ex-Mormon Reed Cowan's Anti-Mormon Film "8: The Mormon Proposition"; Most Consider It Biased Against Mormons

On June 18th, 2010, the movie "8: The Mormon Proposition" began playing at select theaters throughout the United States; the DVD is to be released shortly. While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints posted no reaction on their official website, many are of the opinion that the movie is anti-Mormon and ignored facts which did not fit the perspective of the primary producer, Reed Cowan.

Reed Cowan actually discusses his history and his motives in a June 16th interview published by Washington City Paper. Cowan grew up as a Mormon, but still realizing he was gay. However, he was faithful to the Church, served a two-year full-time mission, and got married to a woman. The union produced a child. Nevertheless, the marriage turned rocky, and his wife ultimately left him, taking their son. The boy lost his life in a backyard accident four years ago.

Cowan originally intended merely to make a documentary on gay homeless youth, with a focus on Salt Lake City. But after the Proposition 8 controversy brewed up, and Cowan noticed that the LDS Church had taken a public stand in support of the measure, he decided to reexamine his focus and transform the project into a documentary about the LDS role in Proposition 8. After the movie premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, there was mixed reaction; while he did have some support, he also faced a lot of push-back.

A semi-official LDS website has reacted. Jeff Vice has posted a review on the Mormon Times, which while not an official LDS website, is operated by the Deseret News, which is owned by the LDS Church. Vice says that the biggest problem with the film is not just that it's so one-sided, it's also that it is so inept and ineffective in terms of storytelling. He claims it's as if the filmmakers went into the project without a specific direction, aside from making an obvious statement by spending most of the movie pointing fingers of blame in one direction — squarely at the LDS Church. The resulting product feels rambling and unfocused. Vice also notes that the filmmakers never attempted to get the opinions of any of the 7 million-plus Californians who voted for Proposition 8, neglected to mention that California courts may have upheld the measure while still maintaining the validity of same-sex marriages that occurred before its passage, under the so-called "grandfather" clause, and never stated whether the filmmakers tried to get LDS Church officials' input. To add insult to injury, the movie is rated "R" and features strong sexual language, derogatory language and slurs, strong violent imagery, and a scene depicting interrogation.

Other critical reaction has been posted from strictly unofficial LDS blogs. Back on April 27th, 2010, FaithPromotingRumor initially characterized it as a fantastic and provocative film which could be essential viewing for anyone interested in the subject of Mormonism and homosexuality. FPR saw a great deal to praise in this film, not least of which bringing to the screen many powerful stories and characters. Yet FPR also saw much to be critical of here. FPR spotted two serious omissions; first, the lack of reference to recent more moderate statements on homosexuality by LDS leaders, and second, failure to acknowledge that the Church today has no objection to any of the measures to provide rights to gays and lesbians, including couples, short of calling them “marriage.” In the final analysis, FPR believes that the film fails to live up to the ideals of productive conversations, representation of critical issues, and attempts at cooperative partnership with Mormons. To the extent that it presents Mormons and Mormonism as an enemy, it creates a self-fulfilling prophesy and only perpetuates antagonism, hostility, mistrust, and fear that gays and lesbians are out to get Mormons.

A more recent review was published on June 28th, 2010 on One Eternal Round. KevinB opines that the movie primarily preaches to the choir; while the documentary actually contains some valuable material related to homosexuality in the U.S. today, particularly within the LDS Church, which could have formed the basis of a documentary with a positive impact on gay relations today, it is unfortunately surrounded pointless and intellectually dishonest material that will only serve to alienate any members of the audience who aren’t already in the “choir”. KevinB identifies four characteristics which show that not only was the movie NOT intended to attract faithful Mormons, but deliberately offended them instead:

-- No faithful Mormons are presented sympathetically, as noted above. 8 pretends faithful Mormons who were ambivalent to (or directly opposed to) Prop 8 don’t exist — an immediate turn off for those members who could have been the most accessible audience for the film to reach out to.

-- It’s narrowly focused on “gay marriage in California” instead of the larger issue — charity towards gays, especially gay Mormons. 8 doesn’t believe that one can develop greater charity towards gays as fellow human beings and children of a common God without needing to support legalized gay marriage at the same time. 8 defines “charity towards gays” AS “supporting legalized gay marriage”. That’s far too narrow and limiting, especially when the most emotional and moving parts of the documentary have NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

-- It’s rated R, because of three or four swear words and vulgar terms. While the “should Church members watch R-rated movies” debate is ongoing, the R-rating is still a huge handicap for attracting Mormon viewers. None of the profanity in 8 is vital to the content and could not have been cut for a lower rating.

-- Quotes from Church leaders out of context, scary music and audio cues whenever Church leaders are displayed on screen, questionable interpretations of LDS doctrine, and a host of other biased (and unnecessary) filmmaking tricks. Even the film poster (featuring a dark image of an unseen puppet master manipulating minions on strings — gee, who does the puppet master represent here?) is designed to scare off faithful Mormons.

One person identifying as a faithful gay Mormon posted a comment proffering his objections to the film and saying that he's sick and tired of gays always being marketed as "victims":

#16 Joshua Johanson on 28 Jun 2010 at 6:55 pm

Johanson responds to this comment “gay Mormons today face an almost surmountable challenge — how to “endure to the end” in a church that seems to despise them.”

You brought up this point made by the movie, but you did not counter it. That made it sound like you agreed with the movie that gay Mormons feel the church despises them.

Many gay Mormons, or Mormons with same-sex attractions (SSA), do not feel that the church despises them. One of my biggest problems with the film is that it portrays gay (or SSA) Mormons as depressed, suicidal drones with bad family relationships. I think that is a stereotype that only serves to alienate faithful SSA members of the church. Why didn’t the film interview faithful SSA Mormons?

I came out as a gay Mormon three years ago in my single adult ward. I did not hear ONE negative comment from any member of the ward. I still had a calling, a temple recommend, and tons of friends. My whole family knows and is very supportive. Since I have been married, I have been less open in my family ward, but only because there were so many kids.

My point is that while I wish things were different, there is no conflict between having gay feelings and being an active member of the Church. I think the doctrine that by putting off the natural I can be cleansed through the atonement of Christ is a beautiful doctrine. Many other people with SSA do to.

I thank Kevin for calling out for the need of greater acceptance of people with SSA in the church. However, I thought you could be more clear that many SSA Mormons are doing well in the Church. We are not all trying to change church doctrine to fit our natural man. Overall, however, I think it was a great review and I think you brought up several good points about how SSA Mormons could be treated better.

Excellent point. The gay rights lobby constantly portrays gays as victims, although many of them have more disposable income than average, since they don't have kids to spend their money on. Continuing to portray gays as endless victims could trigger backlash, just as the Holocaust lobby's enshrinement of Jews as endless victims is fueling anti-Semitism in Europe and even here in the United States. People are tired of hearing about endless victimhood - American is a nation of VICTORS, not victims.

I do not recommend watching "8: The Mormon Proposition", not because it will cause you to lose your testimony, but because it is clearly a waste of time and money.

Protocol In Partaking Of The Sacrament During An LDS Church Service; No Formal Prohibition Against Non-Members Partaking

During the sacrament meeting portion of the three-hour worship service held weekly by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, congregants get the opportunity to partake of the Sacramental emblems, the bread and the water, when they are passed around. The bread symbolizes the body of Jesus Christ, and the water His blood. We do it only in remembrance of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ; we do not believe in transubstantiation.

Partaking of the sacrament is a witness to God that the remembrance of His Son will extend beyond the short time of that sacred ordinance. Part of this ordinance is a promise to remember Him always and a witness of individual willingness to take upon oneself the name of Jesus Christ and to keep His commandments. In partaking of the sacrament and making these commitments, Church members renew the covenant they made at baptism (see Mosiah 18:8–10; D&C 20:37).

But what about those who are not members of the Church? What covenants are they renewing? Should they be allowed to partake of the Sacrament? What do we tell them, and how can we be diplomatic about it? The What Do Mormons Believe blog addresses the issue very well. In the blogger's personal opinion, there is no harm in taking the Sacrament without being a member. No one is going to look at you like you’ve blasphemed their faith by partaking. But it is important to understand why we take the Sacrament: (1) It reminds us of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and His great sacrifice on our behalf. (2) It serves as a renewal of the covenants we made at our baptism.

Essentially, it’s up to the individual. No one is under any obligation to take the Sacrament. If you feel more comfortable passing the tray along, that’s perfectly acceptable. If you’d like to take it, you’re welcome to do so, though it will mean far more to you after baptism. This weekly ordinance allows baptized and confirmed saints to maintain the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, the greatest gift we can have in life.

This is the smart approach. Explain the ordinance, its meaning and applicability, then tell the investigator to make the final decision personally. Here's a classic example of how NOT to handle it. On April 12th, 2008, Mormon Matters posted this account of an investigator who had been given a chapel card, and showed up for church just as the sacrament service was beginning. When the bread tray came to him, he was unsure what to do, so he took a piece of the bread. Just then, an older missionary who was serving in a branch leadership role jumped up from his seat on the stand and commanded the man (in Spanish) to “Drop it!” which he did. Needless to say, the investigator never returned. To explain his actions, the missionary referred to 3 Ne. 18: 28-29:

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

While this missionary was perhaps a bit overzealous in his application of these scriptures in this specific situation, there is clearly a scriptural prohibition to prevent someone taking the sacrament unworthily. In the August 1999 edition of The Ensign, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles addressed this situation. Speaking about judgments, Elder Oaks said the following about partaking of the Sacrament:

...To be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities. Some time ago I attended an adult Sunday School class in a small town in Utah. The subject was the sacrament, and the class was being taught by the bishop. During class discussion a member asked, “What if you see an unworthy person partaking of the sacrament? What do you do?” The bishop answered, “You do nothing. I may need to do something.”

Because the missionary was part of the branch leadership, it was within his stewardship to intervene. But it would have been much better had he waited until after the service was over before addressing the issue with the investigator.

Additional gems of wisdom about the Sacrament by various General Authorities are available HERE.

What If The First Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith Had Become President Of The United States?

June 27th, 2010 is the 166th anniversary of the assassination of the first President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Prophet Joseph Smith. On June 27th, 1844, after having given himself up to Illinois authorities in good faith that they'd be given a fair trial, with guarantees of his safety extended by Illinois Governor Thomas Ford, Joseph Smith and his party ended up facing a mob, made up of members of the town militia who were in charge of protecting Joseph, which overran the jail in Carthage, Illinois. The mob climbed up to the second floor of the jail, forced the door open and poked their gun barrels into the room. They began shooting, despite efforts by Willard Richards to deflect the gun barrels with his walking stick. Hyrum Smith was shot multiple times and died, falling to the floor. John Taylor was also shot in several places. He was not killed but sought refuge by rolling under the bed. Joseph Smith ran toward the window where he was shot in the back from inside the jail and shot in the chest from outside the jail. He either fell or leaped out of the window, landing on the ground outside the jail, where he was again shot by members of the mob. The Prophet Joseph Smith died at that time.

But when the mob took the life of Joseph Smith, they not only killed a prophet, but also a possible President of the United States. For it was in 1844 that Joseph Smith, tired of the authorities' unwillingness and ability to protect the Saints against mob activity, decided to run for President. Had he succeeded and been elected, it is possible that the slavery problem would have been resolved peacefully, the Civil War might have been averted, the slaves themselves to have received more just treatment, and the United States might have grown into a full-blown North American Union, including Canada and Mexico.

The first embers of a campaign were actually stirred up in Nauvoo on October 1st, 1843, when the Times and Seasons published an editorial entitled “Who Shall Be Our Next President?” While it did not suggest any specific names, it concluded that the candidate must be the man who will be the most likely to render assistance in obtaining redress for Mormon grievances. On November 4th, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote letters to John C. Calhoun, Lewis Cass, Richard M. Johnson, Henry Clay, and Martin Van Buren, the five leading candidates for the presidency of the United States. Each letter described the persecutions the Mormons had suffered at the hands of the state of Missouri and then asked the pointed question, "What will be your rule of action relative to us as a people, should fortune favor your ascension to the chief magistracy" Only Calhoun, Cass, and Clay responded to Joseph Smith’s letters, and they expressed little sympathy for the cause of the Saints.

When Joseph Smith realized that none of the leading candidates for the presidency would pledge to support redress for the Saints, he held a meeting in the mayor’s office at Nauvoo on January 29th, 1844, with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and others. It was unanimously decided that Joseph Smith would run for president of the United States on an independent platform. Shortly thereafter, Joseph Smith published his platform in the form of a short pamphlet entitled "General Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States". 1,500 copies of the pamphlet were printed, and copies mailed to the President of the United States and his cabinet, the justices of the Supreme Court, senators, representatives, editors of principal newspapers, postmasters, and other prominent citizens. To help further publicize the campaign, missionaries were called and set apart to go forth to do both proselyting and electioneering.

The pamphlet has been re-posted in full HERE. The highlights of Joseph Smith's platform are provided below:

-- Give the President full power to send an army to suppress mobs without requiring the governor of a state to make the demand.

-- Abolish slavery by having Congress pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from members of Congress.

-- Reduce congressional pay from eight dollars to two dollars per day; fix the number of members of Congress at two Senators per state and two Representatives per one million in population.

-- Reduce the number of prisons and the types of offenses requiring imprisonment; transform remaining prisons into rehabilitation centers; allow convicts to rehabilitate through useful labor. Abolish imprisonment for debt.

-- Abolish the practice in the military of trying men by court-martial for desertion. If a soldier or marine runs away, send him his wages, with this instruction, that his country will never trust him again; he has forfeited his honor.

-- Create a national bank with branches in every state, where the capital stock shall be held by the nation for the central bank, and by the states and territories for the branches.

-- Annex Oregon and Texas; extend the United States “from the east to the west sea,” but only if American Indians gave their consent.

-- Eventually offer Canada and Mexico the opportunity to join the United States voluntarily.

Many of Joseph Smith's enemies understood the appeal of Joseph Smith's platform, and began plotting his demise. On June 27th, 1844, Joseph Smith's Presidential campaign came to an abrupt end as he was called upon to seal his testimony with his blood. Nevertheless, many of Joseph Smith’s proposals eventually came to pass, although not necessarily in the way he had envisioned. The power of the presidency was increased by Abraham Lincoln during the U.S. Civil War; the Civil War led to emancipation of the slaves; the penal system improved, although not to the extent that Joseph prescribed; and Oregon and Texas did become part of the United States. The Union’s borders soon stretched from sea to sea, but without the consent of American Indians.

CNN Covers The Vancouver LDS Temple In Its "Sacred Spaces" Series; Elder William R. Walker Provides The Commentary

The LDS Newsroom blog informs us that CNN has covered the Vancouver B.C. Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on its "Sacred Spaces" series. The series explores the sacred spaces of a multitude of religious faiths and denominations. The specific post is available in CNN's Belief Blog.

"Starring" in this video (if "starring" is the operative word) is Elder William R. Walker of the Seventy, who serves as the executive director of the LDS Church's Temple Department. While he discusses the significance of the temple, pictures show the various rooms therein. Video embedded below:



The Vancouver Temple was formally dedicated as the-then 132nd LDS Temple on May 2nd, 2010. You can read the text of the dedicatory prayer offered by President Thomas S. Monson HERE. A timeline of the temple's construction is provided HERE.

A complete list of all LDS Temples, both operational and under construction, is available HERE.