SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The Bishop knew that this man had abused children before and knew this Mother had a young son.  He did not warn the Mother.  Why do you focus your blame on the Mother?

Since the Bishop didn't do the abusing (he only knew about it and didn't warn a Mother in his ward to protect her young son from this man), that's ok by you?  Interesting.  It doesn't count because it was just another adult member of the church abusing the young boy. 

 

How about you read the links that you insisted on receiving?  You can tell just by reading the link titles that most of them involve a Bishop abusing youth.

Until you've read them and can comment, I won't be responding anymore here.  I'm pretty disgusted already by your response so far.

So you won't say which of the accounts involve a bishop committing abuse in an interview situation, then?

[ttribe]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

So you won't say which of the accounts involve a bishop committing abuse in an interview situation, then?

And you refuse to acknowledge that the interview situations are the likely gateways to later abuse. 

[Bobbieaware]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And what about all of the other children that he abused?  Are you going to attempt to blame their Mothers too (or the victim)?  How about you put the blame where it belongs?  Unbelievable.  

Here's what took place with Curtis abusing Jeremiah Scott:

Still want to blame the Mother, Bobbieaware?

I agree that it seems odd, but she was not warned by her Bishop who knew of the previous abuse.

So now it's your turn to imagine I said things I didn't say and impugn my motives. I am familiar with this case and for the sake of a more complete picture of the offense I sighted those two interesting and pertinent facts. I believe Curtis is as guilty as h--l and that he got exactly what he deserved. But one thing is for sure, if Sandra had followed the bishop's counsel it's unlikely Jeremiah would have been molested. She was the one who came to the bishop for advise on the matter but she put aside his counsel. And I must also say it's unlikely even one mother in a million could be found who would think it was a good idea to have her young son sleep in the same bed with a stranger. Why can't both things be true? Curtis is a sick and evil preditor who deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison and the mother was sadly lacking in good judgement? 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And you refuse to acknowledge that the interview situations are the likely gateways to later abuse. 

I have no way to determine that. Not sure you do either. 

So is there none of those links that pertains to a bishop molesting someone while doing an interview? 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have no way to determine that. Not sure you do either. 

How about this (from one of Alarson's links):

"Like Bishop Mercer, Bishop Powell also used the excuse of "interviews" to sexually abuse the teenager:

He always waited to get close to me. I would be his last appointment. He would [be] in the bishop’s office at church on the floor with his back against the door. He would sit with his legs spread apart. I would sit between his legs. (Scott is demonstrating the position and starts to cry.) He would kiss me on the lips and hug me.... When he would kiss me on the floor in the bishop’s office, I would keep my teeth clenched to keep him from slipping his tongue in my mouth. I felt his tongue.... This [happened] for about six months two or three times a week....

I didn’t realize that what he was doing was sexual abuse.… I thought that rape was the only type of sexual abuse."

 

Scott, are you even going to read the cases provide for you here?

[Storm Rider]

Boy, has this thread gone far from the topic.  We do that sometimes - we begin at the thumb and before you know we are pounding on the toe for some strange reason.

Back to the topic - I still see this as using your common sense in relationships.  In this age we will be placed in situations or business relationships with members of the opposite sex.  The vast majority of the time these are professional relationships, but it is goes beyond naivety to think that professional relationships easily devolve into something else.  I don't have a problem with casual business lunches with others regardless of their gender.  I have never been put in the position of needing to dine with a woman in the evening other than my wife.  I can easily see where this would be uncomfortable for some people and I don't see a problem preventing such events from occurring -  "Gosh, Jane I am really tired tonight and I think I will just have room service and get to bed early."  

It is not a form of discrimination regardless of how many feminists want to think that circles and squares are the same thing.  I completely discount any proposition that attempts to make everyone think that everyone is just the same - they are not and never have been.  

Just use common sense; agreed it is sorely lacking, but we all should try. 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Have you been reading his responses?

Yes

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have no way to determine that. Not sure you do either. 

Your utter refusal to even investigate or consider the possibility is thoroughly nauseating. 

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So now it's your turn to imagine I said things I didn't say and impugn my motives. I am familiar with this case and for the sake of a more complete picture of the offense I sighted those two interesting and pertinent facts. I believe Curtis is as guilty as h--l and that he got exactly what he deserved. But one thing is for sure, if Sandra had followed the bishop's counsel it's unlikely Jeremiah would have been molested. She was the one who came to the bishop for advise on the matter but she put aside his counsel. 

The bishop did not warn her or tell her that Curtis was a child abuser.  He advised her not to take him in for "financial reasons".

 

[Calm]

"calm shows up and defends Scott"

When you accuse him of defending abusers when he's not, Yeah.

I am not agreeing with him on other things...I don't believe abuse needs to be shown to take place in youth interviews to suggest caution be allowed.  Grooming behaviour may or may not take place in interviews, but being in one case alone with a potential abuser can lead to being more trusting when actual grooming or abusive behaviour occurs.

[JulieM]

Just now, ttribe said:

Your utter refusal to even investigate or consider the possibility is thoroughly nauseating. 

Very.  And I'm shocked he's being defended by calm (?)

[JulieM]

This thread will probably be locked soon to protect Scott too 

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I weigh the risk and the cost. There's a far greater urgency, in my view, that the leader will be hampered in the performance of his priesthood duty by my presence in the room than there is that there will be problems without it.

Regarding cases of abuse, how many cases involving bishops are you personally aware of within the last year? Five years? 10 years?

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by sunstoned

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So now it's your turn to imagine I said things I didn't say and impugn my motives. I am familiar with this case and for the sake of a more complete picture of the offense I sighted those two interesting and pertinent facts. I believe Curtis is as guilty as h--l and that he got exactly what he deserved. But one thing is for sure, if Sandra had followed the bishop's counsel it's unlikely Jeremiah would have been molested. She was the one who came to the bishop for advise on the matter but she put aside his counsel. And I must also say it's unlikely even one mother in a million could be found who would think it was a good idea to have her young son sleep in the same bed with a stranger. Why can't both things be true? Curtis is a sick and evil preditor who deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison and the mother was sadly lacking in good judgement? 

I'm still unclear about the relevance of this case to the discussion at hand which is about the potential of bishops to perpetrate abuse. No bishop did that in this incident.