Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, ttribe said: Careful now, because he's already stated unequivocally that they don't really care about kids; they just want to subvert the process and do away with ALL worthiness interviews. How does he know that? Because he SAYS SO, of course! Isn't that pretty much the agenda, though?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Hey California boy, do you have that quote from the Trib article yet? The one that says the Church forces people to do things against their will?
Calm Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 1 hour ago, ALarson said: Start here maybe (but there were a couple in the news just recently too): https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/6/60/INSTANCES_OF_CHILD_SEXUAL_ABUSE_ALLEGEDLY_PERPETRATED_BY_MEMBERS_OF_THE_CHURCH_OF_JESUS_CHRIST_OF_LATTER-DAY_SAINTS-2017-06.pdf Pointing to a 316 page paper without providing details on how to or where to find the actual specific references probably does not meet the standard of meeting a CFR mods have followed in the past (they have, for example, judged a reference to a book without page numbers as insufficient). There is no instance of "youth interview" in the article and using my iPad's find (problematic so I don't guarantee accuracy) on "interview" found a few possible specific instances of abuse happening in interviews (though one of the detailed ones was improper in that no one else was in the building at the time, another did not involve a bishop)...given that the report spans 50 years or so, I don't think this demonstrates the risks outweigh the benefits. 1
Calm Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Isn't that pretty much the agenda, though? Not mine nor most parents I know who want the option of another adult being in the room. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Calm said: Pointing to a 316 page paper without providing details on how to or where to find the actual specific references probably does not meet the standard of meeting a CFR mods have followed in the past (they have, for example, judged a reference to a book without page numbers as insufficient). There is no instance of "youth interview" in the article and using my iPad's find (problematic so I don't guarantee accuracy) on "interview" found a few possible specific instances of abuse happening in interviews (though one of the detailed ones was improper in that no one else was in the building at the time, another did not involve a bishop)...given that the report spans 50 years or so, I don't think this demonstrates the risks outweigh the benefits. Heh. Seems to be a new strategy for deflecting a CFR. Present a flood of irreleblvant verbiage.
ALarson Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Pointing to a 316 page paper without providing details on how to or where to find the actual specific references probably does not meet the standard of meeting a CFR mods have followed in the past (they have, for example, judged a reference to a book without page numbers as insufficient). I saw no CFR issued (maybe I missed it?). I was responding to this from Scott: "Regarding cases of abuse, how many cases involving bishops are you personally aware of within the last year? Five years? 10 years?" And, ttribe listed many cases in response as well.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Not mine nor most parents I know who want the option of another adult being in the room. Fair enough. But I had in mind those who are doing the agitating for it. A lot of them seem not to like the idea of bishop interviews in general.
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Isn't that pretty much the agenda, though? Whose agenda? Is there some vast conspiracy about which I'm unaware? I think I've explained myself plainly; as has Calm. I don't get the intransigence you are showing on this.
ALarson Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Heh. Seems to be a new strategy for deflecting a CFR. Yeah, like you deflected/responded (or didn't respond, I should say...) to mine on the other thread? And that one was an actual CFR that was issued!! (Unlike this one.) If you want more references than what I provided or what ttribe gave where leaders have abused youth (who were allowed to be alone with the adult leader), I will try to look more up tomorrow. For now, I've got to sign off and head home. Have a nice evening! Edited August 16, 2017 by ALarson
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: I saw no CFR issued (maybe I missed it?). I was responding to this from Scott: "Regarding cases of abuse, how many cases involving bishops are you personally aware of within the last year? Five years? 10 years?" And, ttribe listed many cases in response as well. I think I've made it clear I was asking about cases specifically involving misbehavior by bishops in youth interviews. Got anything else, since this fails?
Calm Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Seems to be a new strategy for deflecting a CFR.... Not really in my view. Iirc, people are generally more aware of the board rules now than in the past and are less likely to provide vague references for whatever reason.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: Yeah, like you deflected/responded (or didn't respond, I should say...) to mine on the other thread? And that one was an actual CFR that was issued!! (Unlike this one.) If you want more references than what I provided or what ttribe gave where leaders have abused youth (who were allowed to be alone with the adult leader), I will try to look more up tomorrow. For now, I've got to sign off and head home. Have a nice evening! Maybe you could try to be more specific this time.
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think I've made it clear I was asking about cases specifically involving misbehavior by bishops in youth interviews. Got anything else, since this fails? Did you read them?
Calm Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: A lot of them seem not to like the idea of bishop interviews in general. Anyone on this current thread? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, ttribe said: Whose agenda? Is there some vast conspiracy about which I'm unaware? I think I've explained myself plainly; as has Calm. I don't get the intransigence you are showing on this. Just asking. When this has been brought up before, it has seemed to be with a sense of hostility and cynicism. Maybe I misread it.
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Just asking. When this has been brought up before, it has seemed to be with a sense of hostility and cynicism. Maybe I misread it. Maybe I missed it, but it certainly isn't my motivation.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Calm said: Anyone on this current thread? No.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Just now, ttribe said: Maybe I missed it, but it certainly isn't my motivation. So you're OK with bishops interviewing youth for worthiness, then? Even one-on-one in private ( so long as parents and youth consent)?
ttribe Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: So you're OK with bishops interviewing youth for worthiness, then? Even one-on-one in private ( so long as parents and youth consent)? If there's no pressure to consent? Sure. My preference would still be for the Church to require additional controls, but I understand the need for adjusting to individual circumstances.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, ttribe said: Did you read them? Calm examined what ALarson presented. Yours only involved one currently serving bishop and it wasn't clear the abuse occurred in a youth interview. You gave some speculation about "grooming" but it was only speculation.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: If there's no pressure to consent? Sure. My preference would still be for the Church to require additional controls, but I understand the need for adjusting to individual circumstances. So you do want to change the current structure then.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: No, I didn't "loose" focus. But it's possible I did lose focus. Maybe you could help by quoting a specific paragraph or passage from the article, one that clearly says the Church of Jesus Christ takes away people's agency by forcing them to do things. Bumping for California Boy. Edited August 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
ttribe Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you do want to change the current structure then. Well, I stated a preference in my previous post.
ALarson Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think I've made it clear I was asking about cases specifically involving misbehavior by bishops in youth interviews. Got anything else, since this fails? How would you know? You've admitted you didn't even read any of the over 300 pages of reported abuse cases against the leaders. Here are what a quick google search brought up (I'll see if I have time to search for more tomorrow as I truly have to leave my office now): http://fox13now.com/2017/06/23/lds-bishop-arrested-for-sexual-abuse/ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/utah-judge-calls-ex-mormon-bishop-convicted-rape-good-man-article-1.3057753 https://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=17927418 http://www.menifee247.com/2013/11/former-menifee-mormon-bishop-pleads-guilty-to-sex-crimes.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/child-abuse-cover-up-costs-mormon-church-3-million-71939217.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/24/mormon-bishop-sex-crime/4829127/ Some cases involving Bishops: http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume1/v1.htm LDS Church abuse cases In 2001, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) paid a three million dollar settlement to Jeremiah Scott, after Scott filed a lawsuit in 1998 against the church for what his attorney described as an attempted cover-up of sexual abuse Scott suffered from church member Franklin Curtis.[1] The LDS Church denied legal liability in the case, and said it was settling the lawsuit based on "litigation economics" alone.[1] In September 2008, LDS Church bishop Timothy McCleve pleaded guilty to sexually molesting children from his ward.[2] He was sentenced in December 2008 to one-to-15 year prison terms for the abuse.[3] In March 2010, former LDS Church bishop Lon Kennard, Sr. was charged with 43 felony counts of sex abuse and sexual exploitation of children, and was imprisoned in Wasatch County, Utah. In November 2011, Kennard was sentenced to three terms of five-years-to-life in prison to be served consecutively, after pleading guilty to three first-degree felony counts of aggravated sex abuse of a child for sexually abusing his daughters.[4][5] In December 2013, LDS Church bishop Todd Michael Edwards was sentenced to three years in prison for molesting two teenage girls who attended his congregation in Menifee, California. Edwards received two concurrent sentences of three years in prison for two felony counts of sexual battery and sexual penetration with a foreign object. A felony charge of witness intimidation was dismissed as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors after Edwards pleaded guilty.[6] In January 2014, two men filed a lawsuit in the U.S. state of Hawaii against the LDS Church, alleging that they were sexually abused as children on a church-owned pineapple farm in Maui from 1986 through 1988.[7] In January 2014, former LDS Church bishop Michael Wayne Coleman was arrested and charged with luring a minor for sexual exploitation after a forensic examination of his laptop and cellphone revealed sexually graphic conversations and an exchange of nude photographs with a teenaged student in Brazil.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases (May be some duplication....I tried to check but am out of here!) Edited August 17, 2017 by ALarson
ttribe Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Calm examined what ALarson presented. Yours only involved one currently serving bishop and it wasn't clear the abuse occurred in a youth interview. You gave some speculation about "grooming" but it was only speculation. Just thinking about this post...what difference does it make whether the bishop is "currently serving" or not? If they were able to build trust with the youth when they were a bishop, and because they had been, is that not enough? Moreover, I would consider it unlikely that the abuse would occur during the interview. Rather, that would be the ideal place for grooming for later abuse; which would be obvious had you read the article I provided. 1
Recommended Posts