Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

JulieM

Members
  • Content count

    1,852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

JulieM last won the day on April 19

JulieM had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,822 Excellent

About JulieM

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

839 profile views
  1. Darren, you have every right to your opinion. I just think you should really read about what this entire case entails. There's a lot more to it than just one mother who used bad judgement by allowing this 87 year old man to sleep with her son (which I have acknowledged and not agreed with her doing this). This man had already confessed to and been excommunicated for abusing young boys prior to that. He also was convicted in a court of law for child abuse and served prison time. If you want to continue to place the blame on just one of the numerous victim's mother for the abuse, you can of course believe that. But, I feel the blame should be placed on the man who abused the many boys that he abused.
  2. Oh wow, Duncan. I'm so sorry this happened to you. You are such an amazing person and add so much to this forum. How awful for you. But at least the man was discovered and punished. Hopefully he never harmed another boy like he did you
  3. He was convicted of child abuse, I believe, and served time in prison. He also was excommunicated for confessed child abuse. The abuse of the boy who we are discussing was not an isolated case. He abused many other young boys. Wouldn't it be in his church record that he'd been excommunicate for child abuse? I have to believe a new bishop would be aware of that and exercise extreme caution when considering him for a calling dealing with young men or allowing him to be in a home where a young boy was present.
  4. I agree! I don't understand those that defend a bishop who knew a man had abused numerous children, but didn't warn a mother to keep her young son away from him (after he learned the man was moving into their home). I love how you handle this issue.
  5. You should study the facts in the case (I'm trying to as well). The bishop did nothing even after the mother discovered the abuse. The mother showed poor judgement, I agree. But she's not responsible for the abuse. I would like to know why he was invited into their home and I'm trying to read more on this. This guy (Curtis) must have been a good manipulator to have abused and fooled so many. It's a horribly sad story and the number of boys hurt and abused by him over the years is astounding. This wasn't just one isolated case. There were more than this one bishop who looked the other way too or didn't make sure he wasn't called to serve over young men. Again, it's just really very sad and disturbing.
  6. You were not whipping her, were you? (It's hard to tell by the way you wrote your post but wanted to make sure.)
  7. Love this post. You're a good man, Papa.
  8. I disagree here. The abuser is the one who is "110,000%" responsible for the abuse, not the mother. Also the bishop shares some of that since he knew this man was a repeat child abuser and he did not warn the mother (even after he knew the man was in the house). Don't get me wrong, I do think it's very odd that the mother allowed this old man (87 years old iirc at the time) to sleep in the same bed as her son. Creepy is the word I'd use! But he was probably grandfatherly and it was a different time when things were not out in the open so much about abuse (the 80's) as now when it would be unheard of pretty much to allow that. However, it's still poor judgement on the mom's part no matter how you look at it. But she is not the one to blame for her son being abused for so long. That completely lies at the feet of the abuser, IMO. I also feel very strongly that the bishop should have moved heaven and earth to get that man out of her house knowing the situation and knowing the man's past.
  9. Not everyone feels as strongly as Scott and others here still do. We need to remember that. I find that many are not happy about the recent policy and there are more in the church now that are accepting of SSM. This is especially true with many of the youth. I see this PR announcement as trying to reach them (the youth) since this is an event for them.
  10. Nothing officially has been added and that's the point. Others here have added more words or qualified it and so on. Also church leaders have discussed it more too. It should be simple to just see that and what was originally posted was about the wording of the law. I'm not sure what the big deal continues to be
  11. He posted the actual wording for the law of chastity (from what I can tell). The added explanations and descriptions are really not a part of the actual law. I think that's the point. Did he ever say that as stated, SSM was ok according to the actual law? If so, I didn't see that.
  12. I agree (if that's definitely the case). But what about a bishop warning a potential victim (as in the Curtis case)? I know that's not so black and white most likely. rongo, I'd love your thoughts on that too as a bishop (iirc you are serving as one, right?). Would you have told or warned the mother involved (in confidence)?
  13. I have seen discussions today about this elsewhere online, but haven't seen it posted here. I thought in light of the recently locked thread (where the Franklyn Curtis case involving the Mormon church was being discussed), it was relevant to us too. How do members here feel about a Priest or Bishop being forced to reveal child abuse confessed to them in private? Could the child involved in the Curtis case been spared the abuse if the Bishop had warned his mother about his repeated behavior as a child abuser? Here is a link to the article and a couple of quotes from it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/royal-commission-into-child-sexual-abuse-recommendations/8804040 "Clergy who fail to report information about child sexual abuse heard during confession would face criminal charges under a series of sweeping changes to the criminal justice system recommended in a new report." ...... "The royal commission said it had heard evidence of multiple cases where abuse was disclosed in confession, both by victims and perpetrators." "We have concluded that the importance of protecting children from child sexual abuse means that there should be no exemption from the failure to report offence for clergy in relation to information disclosed in or in connection with a religious confession."
  14. This thread will probably be locked soon to protect Scott too
  15. Very. And I'm shocked he's being defended by calm (?)
×