Sad story of abuse of LDS scout ....

[_Jason Bourne]

There have been many sad stories before the Boy Scouts of America implemented the current safeguards. There have been many bad calls by bishops as well. I didn't like the article much. The writer has ulterior motives. Otherwise he would have done some homework and reported on what the church, BSA, law enforcement and legislation have done in the last 13 years.

There has been progress. More needs to be done. Educating and training bishops better would help.

Please correct me if I am wrong. The Bishop (or other religeous leaders of any church including a scoutmaster) is required by law to report any alleged child sexual abuse to local police. As I understand, the church requires them also to contact their damage control hotline as well.

It depends what state one lives in as to reporting and yes the church has a hotline and it is used by bishops who need direction and not just for damage control.

The church does keep a list of those convicted of sexual crimes. They are forbidden leadership positions for life within all youth programs.

Any member that is disciplined for abuse has their record annotated as such forever.

Unfortunately for those that still see Joseph Smith as a role model, he would necessarily be included on the sexual predator list for having extramarital relations with girls perhaps as young as 14 years of age.

Nice dig. See my post above about expoiting a bad situation to make digs at the LDS Church. You were doing fine till this.

On somewhat of a sidenote, a male can only teach in primary if there is at least one other adult present.

Yes this is a new policy about two years old.


.

For many, all the above safeguards were too little, too late.

The custodian at the elementarty school I attended abused boys. What safegaurds did they have I wonder. Should we comdemn all elementary schools and their custodians?

Where was the inspiration to preempt and safeguard such abominations to children? Many hearts died pierced with deep wounds. Even the early '90's were a trainwreck for bad/no policy. Shame on them for being such blind guides.

Like it or not nobody ever claimed that inspiration would be there to protect us from all the bad choices of others. This is just another excuse to jab the LDS Church.

What could be so difficult to come to the knowledge that there is no legitimate cure for pedaphilia?

Well it seemed to take the social sciences some time to figure this out. Too bad you did not enlighten them sooner.

[_Jason Bourne]

Actually, Robert was the son who was abused; Joe was the scout leader who abused Robert.

Oh man, now I feel like an idiot.

All your comments on this thread should make you feel this way.

[_Jason Bourne]

I agree 100% with this. The whole scenario (and the Church's culpability) is further complicated by the fact that scouting activities are very, very strongly encouraged in the Church. So, to extend WK's metaphor, it would be like someone running a red light on Church business who had been very, very strongly encouraged to "step on it."

Of course you do.

[Guest]

Stuff like this makes me physically ill. I too hope the church is better about dealing with this problem than it has been. But it's hard to know, isn't it?

It is tough to know all that goes on. This is a societal issue not just an LDS issue. It is too bad some here use it to whip the LDS Church over it. Makes me sick that some would exploit it in such a way.

That would be me, everybody.

In my opinion, the church is about as true as they can be on this issue - now.

Perhaps the prophet and apostles need to be forgiven too, but it may take a little more time for me to feel to do so.


I suppose this subject touches the nerves of everyone at varying depths.

[_Jersey Girl]

Just a couple of quick comments on this, I've read it before and you probably won't like what I have to say.

Robert's case:

1. As I understand it, none of the assaults on Robert took place during scouting activities.

2. The church isn't culpable, the mother is.

3. Background checks are good in theory but do not prevent sexual abuse.

Jersey Girl

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I just got done reading the whole thing. Wow, what a sad, sad story.

The clincher, in my opinion, came at the very end and sums up the LDS church's philosophy on child abuse (and every other form of abuse) in a tidy little package. Referring to the Joe, the child victim, his mother Anne reports:

A few years ago, Anne received a letter from a Mormon bishop in California. The bishop wrote to tell her that Joe was reapplying to be a member of the church. Would the family forgive him?

"You don't want to know what I said," says Anne.

I don't get why that bishop wrote to her with such a request. Is Joe's rebaptism conditioned upon Anne's forgiveness? I believe in forgiveness and hope someday she is ready to do that, for her own sake and her son's, but for the bishop to ask her this is intrusive, to say the least, it seeks to put the church on higher moral ground than she is on, the church takes no responsibility for this horrible thing and then it throws the responsibility -- and blame -- back on her if she won't forgive. &*(& $#E%YU# #$#@

When a person is Ex'd from the LDS Church and later wants to be baptized again a bishop HAS to ask those who were hurt by the person what their feelings are about the persons rebaptism. This is taken into account before the FP gives permissions. Typically a bishop asks for a letter fromt the person(s) harmed if they will give it and it goes with the paper work to SLC.

Thanks for the information. It makes no sense to me, but then nothing to do with excommunication makes sense to me. It is galling that this church, which claims to have inspiration and guidance from God in very literal and explicit ways, after completely failing this mother and child, still presumes to have any spiritual authority over her and still presumes to insert itself into her personal spiritual journey, this church, which is producing self-rightous reactionaries like Gaz, is presuming to ask this mother to forgive this pedophile on the church's schedule and for the church's program of rebaptism, this church which has no inspiration or abilitiy to help the pedophile or anyone else, this church which has (historically) provided safe haven for pedophiles and advised young gay men to marry unsuspecting girls, this church which has acted in naivette, ignorance and lack of inspiration or even christlike inclination in matters involving sex, this church knows nothing about forgiveness and has no business pretending it does.

And Jason, go back and re-read your post above. Did you mean to say that it's a foregone conclusion that every person who has been ex'd from the church hurt someone? I was ex'd and the only person hurt in that situation was me. This church is so spiritually retarded that it excommunicates people and calls it an act of love because it can't come up with anything better.

[_harmony]

Just a couple of quick comments on this, I've read it before and you probably won't like what I have to say.

Robert's case:

1. As I understand it, none of the assaults on Robert took place during scouting activities.

But in all of them, Joe was the scoutmaster, a calling in a church-sponsored troop, not a volunteer, like in a non-church sponsored troop. Thus, he had official standing in the eyes of the church and priesthood authority in the eyes of the members.

2. The church isn't culpable, the mother is.

How is she culpable?

3. Background checks are good in theory but do not prevent sexual abuse.

They will not catch someone who has never been caught before, that's true, but they will catch someone who has been caught before and is keeping that a secret.

[_The Nehor]

Just a couple of quick comments on this, I've read it before and you probably won't like what I have to say.

Robert's case:

1. As I understand it, none of the assaults on Robert took place during scouting activities.

But in all of them, Joe was the scoutmaster, a calling in a church-sponsored troop, not a volunteer, like in a non-church sponsored troop. Thus, he had official standing in the eyes of the church and priesthood authority in the eyes of the members.

2. The church isn't culpable, the mother is.

How is she culpable?

3. Background checks are good in theory but do not prevent sexual abuse.

They will not catch someone who has never been caught before, that's true, but they will catch someone who has been caught before and is keeping that a secret.

I think what they're saying is why is the Mother letting her son spend lots of alone time with a grown man who is not his father simply because of his calling? This does not necessarily make her cuplable though but it doesn't seem like good judgment.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl:

Just a couple of quick comments on this, I've read it before and you probably won't like what I have to say.

Robert's case:

1. As I understand it, none of the assaults on Robert took place during scouting activities.

Harmony:

But in all of them, Joe was the scoutmaster, a calling in a church-sponsored troop, not a volunteer, like in a non-church sponsored troop. Thus, he had official standing in the eyes of the church and priesthood authority in the eyes of the members.

Jersey Again: harm, the way I view it is that holding the scoutmaster calling and priesthood authority are separate from the incidents of brutal abuse. While he may have spiritual accountability to the church in this regard and his relationship with Robert certainly had it's roots in the church, he was not acting out during official scouting activities or on church property. (If I understand the situation correctly and the article doesn't give us much detail. ). Let me try to give you an analogy.

Let's say I am a teacher and I develop a relationship with the family of one of my students. I am invited to family functions and offered to take the child on outings, during which time I engage in inappropriate and unlawful conduct with said child.

In that case, is the school that contracted me either culpable or liable for my activity?

Jersey:

2. The church isn't culpable, the mother is.

harmony:

How is she culpable?

Jersey Again: Because she allowed the scoutmaster access to her child outside of official scouting activities. Her culpability may not be actionable however, the fact that she granted permission for the adult to have private access to her child in my view, automatically rules out church culpability.

Jersey :

3. Background checks are good in theory but do not prevent sexual abuse.

harmony:

They will not catch someone who has never been caught before, that's true, but they will catch someone who has been caught before and is keeping that a secret.

Jersey Again: We agree on this.

[_Jason Bourne]

Thanks for the information. It makes no sense to me, but then nothing to do with excommunication makes sense to me. It is galling that this church, which claims to have inspiration and guidance from God in very literal and explicit ways, after completely failing this mother and child, still presumes to have any spiritual authority over her and still presumes to insert itself into her personal spiritual journey, this church, which is producing self-rightous reactionaries like Gaz, is presuming to ask this mother to forgive this pedophile on the church's schedule and for the church's program of rebaptism, this church which has no inspiration or abilitiy to help the pedophile or anyone else, this church which has (historically) provided safe haven for pedophiles and advised young gay men to marry unsuspecting girls, this church which has acted in naivette, ignorance and lack of inspiration or even christlike inclination in matters involving sex, this church knows nothing about forgiveness and has no business pretending it does.

The Church was not asking the mother to forgive on the Church's term. For whatever reasons this bishop was applying for the perp's re-admission and before the Church will do so it asks those harmed by the actions of the person who committed the crime or sin what their opinions on it are. In some cases that person being asked may impact the decision either way.

And Jason, go back and re-read your post above. Did you mean to say that it's a foregone conclusion that every person who has been ex'd from the church hurt someone? I was ex'd and the only person hurt in that situation was me.

No I did not mean that. I was referring to issues like abuse or adultery that clearly results in harm to another.

This church is so spiritually retarded that it excommunicates people and calls it an act of love because it can't come up with anything better

Whatever.