My frequent readers who have followed my blog over the years know that I was baptized into the Catholic Church in 2022. There were a lot of reasons why, but one of the main reasons for me is that they gave me proof that Catholicism is the only religion founded by Jesus Christ Himself in 33 AD.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, formerly known as “Mormons,” make the same claim: they believe that their church was founded by Christ and restored by Joseph Smith in 1830. But the purpose of this article is not to debate this, nor is the goal to “Mormon bash.” The purpose of the article is to make you laugh at how insane the story within is.
To keep the peace with my wife, I kept going to their church. So, Mass on Saturdays and church on Sundays. What a life.
I kept on serving as what was then the branch’s (local congregation) librarian. I showed up wearing my crucifix and no one said a word. I didn’t offer it up, but when asked about the crucifix, I didn’t lie. I told them what happened and that there was only one reason I even kept showing up.
Surprisingly, a few members said they envied me for “hopping the fence.” Turns out that quite a few people don’t want to be there, but are there to hold onto their families or jobs. I managed to get one member to join me for Mass and she’s in the upcoming RCIA class, the Catholic Church’s answer to the LDS missionary discussions.
Finally, last year, I had enough of the double life and formally left their church by email. My request was granted within hours, folks. Hours. That’s how eager they were to get rid of me. For other people, it takes the church a month to process the withdrawl of their membership. But for me? Hours, even after completely reorganizing their library from top to bottom.
Ain’t that a kick in the teeth?
Oh, and I am permanently barred from ever being admitted back into their church. Ever. Not that I want to, mind you, but that’s the situation. No matter where I go, no matter if it’s years from now, I am forever banished and the church will refuse to baptize me again. It is well with my soul.
Now, on to the point.
Sometime last year, I wrote an article about my experience in officially leaving the LDS church. That article is no longer available due to data loss when switching from one host to another. I did not do a backup properly, so many articles disappeared when the database conversion failed. That’s the only reason that that article is gone forever.
In that article, I discussed my frustrations with the church in general, and the local congregation, which is now known as the Albany 2nd Ward (parish) in the Albany, New York Stake (diocese). In that article, I wrote about a member of the ward who consistently made me angry just by her very existence.
She always walks around the building with an arrogant smirk on her face and I vented that I wished I could slam her face into the wall. I will be completely honest: she’s a minor. Even so, I very much wanted to grab her by the neck and slam that smirking face into the wall across from the library. But I didn’t. Would I have done it if she’d been an adult?
We all want to do things, but those who have control over themselves do not act on those desires. I am one of those people. She was never in any actual danger of being assaulted, at least not on my part. I can only imagine how many other people she pisses off with that smirk.
But that anger is gone now and no one’s face was forced into the wall, a wall which is carpeted I might add.
In response to the article and according to the timing between his reading that original article (I have an alert set up to push a notification to my phone when certain people hit my website) a detective with the Albany Police Department, David Bernacki, apparently and per a detailed investigation of my site’s statistical reports and its relation to his actions, read the article and then breathlessly ran like the wind to Daniel Bolke, the bishop (think Catholic priest) of the ward. When I confronted him with the evidence of his role in this story, he hid under a rock.
Yes, Bolke’s office is equal to that of a Catholic priest. Just without any true religious authority. See, the Catholics have the truth. The Mormons have the word of a guy who married and had sex with at least two teenage girls. But I digress.
Immediately, Bolke banished me from the church property. I was escorted to not only the door but off of the property as well.
No, Bolke has probably never in his pathetic life done the right thing. This letter to the editor proves that quite handily. If that letter is to be believed, and I do believe the author, then Bolke is a snake in the grass scumbag who deserves all the worst that life could possibly throw at him.
But then again, he’s probably mad that he didn’t get a ten-cow wife. He’s maybe 150 lbs and she’s probably pushing 250. She’s probably a two-cow wife at best. When she walks through the halls, she doesn’t actually walk. She waddles.
Anyway, getting back to the point of this article, it turns out that the girl in question is his daughter. That I got banished from the property for merely expressing a desire to wipe that smirk off her face is no surprise then. I never said I was going to do it. No one emailed me. No one got my side. No one did a thing except Bolke. I posit that he abused his authority in this matter.
Clearly, Bolke, with what I feel was forethought and actual malice, abused his authority as a bishop to turn the nuclear key (there is no red button, but I digress). Mighty convenient, huh?
When my wife pressed Bolke for the reason why I’m banished from the castle, she was merely told that it was something I wrote. But at first, he wouldn’t tell her why.
But that’s not all, folks!
Overseeing Bolke is one Bruce McLaughlin, a former state trooper whose title is stake president, the church’s answer to a Catholic bishop. He was, according to my wife, so alarmed by the situation that he didn’t reach out to me to get my side of the story, but he literally ran into the building, breathlessly pulling my wife aside, asking if she was okay.
At that point, my wife was told the specifics of what I wrote. So how do we go from expressing a desire to eliminate a smirk from someone’s face as opposed to an actual threat to my wife being in some kind of danger? I realize the concern, I suppose, but the very idea that I’d put my own wife in any danger is offensive to me.
It is my opinion, therefore, that McLaughlin and Bolke are vile, evil people who, I contend, weren’t looking out for my wife’s safety, but who were looking to make trouble where trouble wasn’t needed. Never in twenty years of marriage have I ever hit my wife. Never in my adult life have I actually assaulted a minor.
Any suggestion to the contrary, and they made that suggestion here, is ill-informed and pathetic. Maybe I should contact the police and report Bolke and McLaughlin for spousal abuse. Or maybe for crimes against children. Then we’d see how it feels for them.
I was tempted to do that. In fact, I went to one of the precincts, sat in the car for a moment, took a big breath and then walked in with the sole intent to file a police report just to muck up their lives for a bit, but I paused, for filing a false police report is a crime. That’s the only reason why I haven’t done it. But I should have. Fair’s fair, folks.
My banishment was a complete overreaction, and you’ll see exactly why later in this article. I was never once asked about my side. Had I been asked, I would have told them that the article came about from frustration and hatred, not a true desire to actually do anything. Sure, the only reason that I never actually smashed her face into the wall was because of legal consequences, but the point is that I never did it.
It’s really a moot point for me that I’m banned, but it’s the principle, given how another member was treated for doing something so mightily evil as opposed to my merely thinking about doing something slightly mean.
Banning me says to me that I’m somehow a legitimate threat to her safety and that of others. That’s extremely offensive and it is not the type of Christlike behavior that their church preaches. No one came to me directly.
But that’s the way Latter-day Saints work, folks. They present a shiny, polished, compassionate image, but none of it is true. Latter-day Saints are, by and large, monsters. But that would be a whole separate article.
Look, if I wanted to smash that girl’s face into the wall, I would have done it. It’s just that simple. I had plenty of opportunities, but when she walked by the library with that offensive smirk, I had to take a deep breath, turn around and stay in the library. At all times, I controlled my desires.
I’m sure others in the ward have desires to do something mean, but they don’t, and they’re allowed on grounds because they don’t blog about it. I’m being punished for blogging about this. That’s all this is: retaliation.
Now, I stood idle and did nothing to her. Are those the actions of someone who is a true threat? The actions of someone who knows that the consequence of that action would be an arrest and either probation or actual jail time?
Bolke even admitted to me via email on February 14, 2025 that I am not a threat. The bold is my emphasis.
“I know things would be fine here [sic] however [sic] [I] cannot give you permission to be on church property.”
This is a grey area for a building where there’s a sign stating that visitors are welcome. That’s what I would be if I stepped onto their property.
As the bishop, he is responsible for providing a safe environment for his flock of sheep. I get that. But the chain of command should have been used here, especially given that the girl in question is his daughter.
The building has since enacted draconian security measures because, I am told, Bolke is afraid that I’ll step foot onto the property at 420 New Scotland Avenue in Albany
The security measures are not working. The missionaries, mainly teenagers on their first time away from home, have been known to leave side doors unlocked. A college student and former Marine, uses the building sometimes as her private study hall. She also forgets. She admitted to me some time ago that she gets in without a key because one set of missionaries leaves a side door unlocked.
If you want to get inside during their sacrament meeting, there is now a gatekeeper there. You have to be let in manually after ringing a doorbell that is used when no one is around after services start. Just dress in your Sunday best and give the priesthood the sign of the first token that they use in their temples, as opposed to the traditional handshake.
For a good time, say, “Ah! You have looked over my kingdom and my greatness and glory. Now you want to take possession of the whole of it! I have a word to say concerning you people.” See the reaction that you get. That phrase must never by uttered outside of their temple. Here’s more about that.
But I digress. Back to the subject at hand.
In light of the situation that involves Bolke and his smirking daughter, McLaughlin should have been the one to make the final decision and then communicate that decision directly to me, because Bolke using his authority in this, shall we say, unique situation could be perceived as being a conflict of interest. But doing the right thing is something that’s absolutely lost on the LDS church, their protests to the contrary kicked to the curb.
Again, it’s all about principle. I have no desire to visit the church just for the hell of it. See what I did there? I have no desire to abandon my Catholic faith and try to come running back to the church by invoking the seventy times seventy rule. That’s supposed to be the rule, but again, per McLaughlin, I have been permanently barred from re-entry. That doesn’t mean a thing to me now, but it’s still funny.
What if my wife is doing something important and wants me there with her? That’s really the only reason that I’d be going into the building.
To put Bolke’s decision into perspective, a convicted child molester who served prison time for sodomizing two 14-year-old boys was welcomed into the ward with open arms. He left in his wake at least two victims in two separate counties. But leadership knows and doesn’t care. I made leadership aware of who he was, but I was told to be concerned with myself.
Sad!
It’s that attitude that will see their kids victimized by either him or another predator. I hope it never happens, but if they let child predators in while banning bloggers, it’s only common sense that they have no common sense.
The predator whom they proudly welcome into their building was in fact convicted of sodomy, deviate sexual intercourse and promoting a sexual performance by a child. He is considered a level three sex offender (the most dangerous offenders of all) and parents of young children still happily welcome him.
I guess a “predicate sex offender” is acceptable to the Latter-day Saints. And Bolke clearly feels that I’m the dangerous one. I’d say that I’d have to wonder how he’d feel if that guy went after his children. His smirky daughter? She’s safe because, you know…right species, wrong gender.
His sons, however, might have something to fear every time this monster slithers through the door. And still, he’s welcome! Me, who has never touched a child inappropriately ever? Not so much, and all over words, not actions.
Let us not forget that an Albany Police Department detective with a high level of church authority has, in my opinion, figuratively leaned against the wall with his arms folded and allowed a sex offender into a building with a plethora of children. As a law enforcement officer, wouldn’t he want to do the right thing? Apparently, as least as far as I can see, he doesn’t know or care.
But if a blogger who wrote about a desire went through the doors, he’d either arrest me or at least escort me off of the property. So, the police are allowing a registered sex offender to attend church and are doing nothing to prevent it.
So, let’s be clear here: a person who expressed a desire to do something so minor (no pun intended) in a blog post is more of a threat than a man who, by virtue of his conviction in a court of law, stuck his dick in at least two teenage boys’ asses? He was caught twice, but what about the times that he got away with that sick conduct? The Latter-day Saints don’t care!
A blogger writes something and all hell breaks loose, but a sex offender wants in? Not gonna happen, apparently.
That’s their line in the sand, folks. Desires to inflict some innocent pain upon someone are not okay, but pedophiles who have actually harmed innocent children are.
But then again, that should come as no surprise given the act that their church’s founder and supposed “prophet,” Joseph Smith, is documented as being married to numerous females, including at least two teenage girls.
The LDS church has publicly confirmed and admitted that Smith had a taste for underage girls. Obviously, that explains why the Albany 2nd Ward welcomes child molesters.
So, Smith married and then slept with teenage girls and they’re okay with that? Make it make sense!
Again, this is all about principle, and in this case, neither Bolke nor McLaughlin have even one iota of principle.
I really have no issue with Bernacki anymore, other than disappointing me with what I feel his inaction in relation to the matter presented to you in this article.
Even though he royally screwed me over in the past, I forgive him. I don’t even have an issue with him now. But I have an obligation to tell the whole story. I really don’t feel that he acted appropriately in this situation.
I forgive him for his sins against me. But Bolke and McLaughlin? Well, not so much.
Make no mistake: just like most any other church (not my parish, thankfully), the building is teeming with children ranging from newborns to teenagers. That’s a problem when you invite sex offenders into the building. In my opinion, that’s begging for trouble!
In the interests of being at least a little bit fair here, I reached out to Bernacki by text message and Bolke and McLaughlin by email and as of the time that this article was published, none of them have offered a comment by deadline time. Nothing but radio silence. Not even a “no comment.” Cowards. Their silence speaks volumes about this whole situation.
Because I’m curious to see what their mothership thinks about that child rapist being welcome while a simple blogger is eschewed, I have also contacted the LDS church’s media relations department in Salt Lake City, Utah, but have not yet received a response.
I doubt that I’ll get a comment from HQ, but if I do not get that response by Friday at 12 noon my time, 10 am theirs, I will be issuing a press release to the local conventional media outlets as to the local ward’s policy of allowing child molesters but disallowing bloggers.
There has just got to be a law against knowingly allowing a child rapist being allowed to be near children. He is, after all, in the sex offender database. And surely the church has an official policy on that. Maybe they simply don’t care.
You see, by their words and deeds, I posit that the leaders of the ward have made it clear that sex offenders, those who are a danger to kids, are welcome, while bloggers who, by the bishop’s own admission are no threat, are not.
Anyway, I have given more than ample opportunities for these people and the church’s PR team to at least try to defend themselves or justify their actions. I’m disappointed that no one has put forth a comment.
Their silence is deafening. So therefore, sex offender good, blogger bad. Roger that!