mrmarklin Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 On 8/15/2017 at 5:07 PM, Amulek said: Yeah, that's why so many companies make men and women share a single bedroom when traveling on business trips. You know, because they are adults. When traveling on business I've never shared with another male, either. This is a silly argument.
mrmarklin Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Indeed. Which is my objection to the premise of this thread: the contempt and derision that is being shown toward reasonable and personal precautions taken to avoid adultery in the workforce, the absurd notion that these precautions somehow equal gender discrimination and thus should not be tolerated. If you want to eat lunch or travel at company expense with someone of the opposite sex who is not your spouse, I suppose that's your choice, but let us be who think such behavior improper and want to govern our own conduct accordingly. People don't necessarily WANT to travel with the opposite sex. It's almost always necessity. Next week I'm traveling with a female colleague on a mandatory conference to maintain our securities licenses. We will likely have a meal together. It's overnight, but we'll be staying in separate rooms, of course. It's all business and it's mandatory.
mrmarklin Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 6 hours ago, bluebell said: Like I said, it's been that way in the three different missions that i've lived in since then. But i get that not every mission would have it, but i'm surprised more missions don't. I served long ago enough that we didn't have this rule. At that time it was assumed that having a companion present at all times was enough. And it was. I'm sure the current rule is the result of a unique circumstance, but I regard it as silly. I think staying with one's companion is enough protection. 1
rongo Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 1 hour 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. I don't think it's vast. There are a small number of people who want windows put in the door of the bishop's office, or mandated chaperoning of interviews, or allowing the option to allow the RS president or someone else to interview people for worthiness, or in some cases that there shouldn't be worthiness interviews at all. This is not a large number of people, and they can seem larger than they are in an online/social media echo chamber. I actually don't know any parents at all personally, or know of any, who insist on chaperoning their children's interviews. I'm aware of the existence of such a sentiment only through people discussing it online. You deflected my question about how you feel about worthiness interviews in general by saying that worthiness interviews "aren't an issue" for you. Would you mind answering these yes or no questions directly: 1) Do you feel that worthiness interviews, in general, are a good thing? If it were up to you, would you encourage them to continue in the Church as a practice? 2) Do you believe that bishops and stake presidents actually shouldn't be doing them? If it were up to you, would you eliminate them? Your flippant treatment of this issue is downright frightening to me. It's not flippant. I hold the office of bishop, with its connected responsibility as a common judge in Israel, to be sacred and important. I think stripping interviews of any real chance of discussing and addressing worthiness is terrible. I think it's so important, that the risk that a morally sick bishop could groom someone in an interview is an acceptable risk compared with the alternative of inquiring about worthiness with parents, friends, or whoever sitting next to them. This is kind of a sore spot because I've had several prominent people in my ward come forward recently with serious transgressions after decades of burying them, because of prominent callings and fear that people under them would be devastated. The incentive to keep it buried is too high when parents, friends, etc. are sitting there listening. This is true in spades of teenagers, even more so than for adults.
strappinglad Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 10 minutes ago, mrmarklin said: People don't necessarily WANT to travel with the opposite sex. It's almost always necessity. Next week I'm traveling with a female colleague on a mandatory conference to maintain our securities licenses. We will likely have a meal together. It's overnight, but we'll be staying in separate rooms, of course. It's all business and it's mandatory. Who is paying for this conference trip? Is the company trying to save money somehow? Could you arrange completely separate travel/meals/accommodation? Would that cost someone extra and if so , would it be worth it?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, ttribe said: 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. This has been a discussion about whether youth interviews with a bishop should be held in private without a parent or other adult in the room. It now appears you are saying you are worried about the potential for abuse occurring at some point in time, <whether or not> the interviews are held in private. It's starting to sound like you are arguing a bishop should not have access to youth at all since, conceivably he, <at any time> could be "grooming" a youth for abuse later, even after he is released from being bishop. It seems odd you would be going there, but who knows? I'm not certain what it is you're arguing now. Edited August 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
mrmarklin Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Fair enough. A lot of them seem not to like the idea of bishop interviews in general. I'm not a fan of one on one interviews and I've been in a bishopric and done youth interviews. I have four children as well. The Boy Scouts now have an ironclad rule that no leader is ever one on one with a youth. It's a good rule, and one I believe the church should adopt. In today's litigious environment I think it can be the Bishops who can be vulnerable!
mrmarklin Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Who is paying for this conference trip? Is the company trying to save money somehow? Could you arrange completely separate travel/meals/accommodation? Would that cost someone extra and if so , would it be worth it? It's a mandatory compliance meeting conducted by our broker/dealer. One cannot avoid it and earn commissions. It would not cost extra to do separate flights, meals etc.. But why? It would be fairly inconvenient to arrive on separate flights and have to take different transport. Plus it would necessitate someone arriving too early or too late. Fairly silly IMNSHO. BTW our company is paying the costs, but we are the owners! So is coming out of our hides. Which raises a question. Should a male have a female business partner not his spouse? I do (she's not the only partner) but I've know many other instances. Believe me, business associates that close are constantly dining, traveling and attending lots of stuff together! Edited August 17, 2017 by mrmarklin
ttribe Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 46 minutes ago, rongo said: I don't think it's vast. There are a small number of people who want windows put in the door of the bishop's office, or mandated chaperoning of interviews, or allowing the option to allow the RS president or someone else to interview people for worthiness, or in some cases that there shouldn't be worthiness interviews at all. This is not a large number of people, and they can seem larger than they are in an online/social media echo chamber. I actually don't know any parents at all personally, or know of any, who insist on chaperoning their children's interviews. I'm aware of the existence of such a sentiment only through people discussing it online. You deflected my question about how you feel about worthiness interviews in general by saying that worthiness interviews "aren't an issue" for you. Would you mind answering these yes or no questions directly: 1) Do you feel that worthiness interviews, in general, are a good thing? If it were up to you, would you encourage them to continue in the Church as a practice? 2) Do you believe that bishops and stake presidents actually shouldn't be doing them? If it were up to you, would you eliminate them? It's not flippant. I hold the office of bishop, with its connected responsibility as a common judge in Israel, to be sacred and important. I think stripping interviews of any real chance of discussing and addressing worthiness is terrible. I think it's so important, that the risk that a morally sick bishop could groom someone in an interview is an acceptable risk compared with the alternative of inquiring about worthiness with parents, friends, or whoever sitting next to them. This is kind of a sore spot because I've had several prominent people in my ward come forward recently with serious transgressions after decades of burying them, because of prominent callings and fear that people under them would be devastated. The incentive to keep it buried is too high when parents, friends, etc. are sitting there listening. This is true in spades of teenagers, even more so than for adults. One, I didn't "deflect" I said straight out that I have no problem with a bishop having one-on-one interviews with adults. Two, I've answered your questions in one form or another throughout the course of this discussion and am not comfortable with you treating me like one of your ward members when I am not. Three, I don't care what office you hold and how seriously you take it; the fact that you think it is an "acceptable risk" that a "morally sick bishop" could use a private interview to groom a child for abuse is, in my opinion, unconscionable. 40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: This has been a discussion about whether youth interviews with a bishop should be held in private without a parent or other adult in the room. It now appears you are saying you are worried about the potential for abuse occurring at some point in time, <whether or not> the interviews are held in private. It's starting to sound like you are arguing a bishop should not have access to youth at all since, conceivably he, <at any time> could be "grooming" a youth for abuse later, even after he is released from being bishop. It seems odd you would be going there, but who knows? I'm not certain what it is you're arguing now. Never mind. I truly don't know why I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt that you will ever conduct yourself in a civil and reasonable fashion or give anyone who disagrees with you about anything the courtesy of trying to understand their position.
JulieM Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 2 hours ago, ALarson said: 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!) These are horrible and heartbreaking to read through! I'm interested to read responses (from Scott and others).
ttribe Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, JulieM said: These are horrible and heartbreaking to read through! I'm interested to read responses (from Scott and others). Don't hold your breath; it's unlikely they'll read them.
Bobbieaware Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, JulieM said: These are horrible and heartbreaking to read through! I'm interested to read responses (from Scott and others). I know two interesting facts about the Jeremiah Scott case and actually know some members of the family. Jeremiah's divorced and then single mother was told by her bishop he didn't think it was a good idea to invite the elderly Brother Curtis to live in her home but the mother disregarded the bishop's counsel and invited Curtis in anyway. And believe it or not, because of cramped quarters, Jeremiah's mother thought it was an acceptable idea to have brother Curtis and her young son sleep in the same bed. I don't know what others might think of such a thing, but I must say having your young son and an aging near stranger sleep in the same bed is one of the weirdest ideas I've ever heard. Edited August 17, 2017 by Bobbieaware
Scott Lloyd Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: I know two interesting facts about the Jeremiah Scott case and actually know some members of the family. Jeremiah's divorced and then single mother was told by her bishop he didn't think it was a good idea to invite the elderly Brother Curtis to live in her home but the mother disregarded the bishop's counsel and invited Curtis in anyway. And believe it or not, because of cramped quarters, Jeremiah's mother thought it was an acceptable idea to have brother Curtis and her young son sleep in the same bed. I don't know what others might think of such a thing, but I must say having a young son and a aging near stranger sleep in the same bed is one of the weirdest ideas I've ever hear. Yes, that one was discussed at length on this board. I doubt A Larson would have brought it up had he been acquainted with the details.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, ttribe said: Never mind. I truly don't know why I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt that you will ever conduct yourself in a civil and reasonable fashion or give anyone who disagrees with you about anything the courtesy of trying to understand their position. Whoah, Nellie! I really am trying to understand you. That's why I asked for clarification. Do you or do you not think the Church should have bishops do youth interviews? If not, how do you propose to fulfill the function that serves? If so, what do you propose the Church do to alleviate your worries about rogue bishops grooming young people for later abuse? Edited August 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yes, that one was discussed at length on this board. I doubt A Larson would have brought it up had he been acquainted with the details. He abused other children too (which shows you really haven't looked into Curtis as he'd already been excommunicated for molesting children prior to what Bobbieaware posted....he was also rebaptized). But, you're not disappointing in that you're already finding ways to discount these numerous cases of child abuse. Amazing. How about you read and study the other many links I provided at your request? I'd like to hear your feelings regarding those, Scott. Edited August 17, 2017 by ALarson
ALarson Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: I know two interesting facts about the Jeremiah Scott case and actually know some members of the family. Jeremiah's divorced and then single mother was told by her bishop he didn't think it was a good idea to invite the elderly Brother Curtis to live in her home but the mother disregarded the bishop's counsel and invited Curtis in anyway. And believe it or not, because of cramped quarters, Jeremiah's mother thought it was an acceptable idea to have brother Curtis and her young son sleep in the same bed. I don't know what others might think of such a thing, but I must say having your young son and an aging near stranger sleep in the same bed is one of the weirdest ideas I've ever heard. 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: Quote Franklin Richards Curtis, who was 87 at the time of the abuse, had been excommunicated by the Church in Pennsylvania for previous abuse. Church records indicate that he was rebaptized in 1984, but as a member of the Rocky Butte Ward in Portland he then abused five additional children. Although the Bishop of that ward confronted him, and Curtis confessed, the Bishop never reported the abuse to the police, and only reported the abuse to Salt Lake City when parents in his ward complained. Curtis then moved to the Brentwood ward, where, the Scott's allege, he told then-Bishop Gregory Lee Foster that he had repented of previous abuse. Bishop Foster later called Curtis to teach Sunday School, and he eventually met Scott's mother, Sandra, and in 1990 arranged to stay with Scott family. When asked if it was a good idea to bring Curtis into their home, Bishop Foster told Sandra Scott no, giving financial reasons. But Sandra Scott brought Curtis in anyway, and even had him share a double-bed with her then-11-year-old son. As a result, Jeremiah Scott was abused on a daily basis for about six months, the lawsuit alleges. When the abuse was finally discovered, Sandra Scott called to warn Bishop Foster, who, she says, told her he had known about Curtis' previous abuse, but couldn't tell her about it because Curtis had repented. 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. Edited August 17, 2017 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, mrmarklin said: It's a mandatory compliance meeting conducted by our broker/dealer. One cannot avoid it and earn commissions. It would not cost extra to do separate flights, meals etc.. But why? It would be fairly inconvenient to arrive on separate flights and have to take different transport. Plus it would necessitate someone arriving too early or too late. Fairly silly IMNSHO. BTW our company is paying the costs, but we are the owners! So is coming out of our hides. Which raises a question. Should a male have a female business partner not his spouse? I do (she's not the only partner) but I've know many other instances. Believe me, business associates that close are constantly dining, traveling and attending lots of stuff together! You have to decide for yourself whether it's worth the risk. Fortunately for you, it seems you are in a position to call the shots far more than if you were mere employees. My position on this thread is that people should not be made to feel like fools or misogynists for being concientious about taking precautions to avoid temptations, especially when it entails following prophetic counsel. Prophets are typically wiser snd have clearer vision than we do. That's why God gives them to us. Edited August 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 14 minutes ago, ALarson said: He abused other children too (which shows you really haven't looked into Curtis as he'd already been excommunicated for molesting children prior to what Bobbieaware posted). But, you're not disappointing in that you're already finding ways to discount these numerous cases of child abuse. Amazing. How about you read and study the other many links I provided at your request? I'd like to hear your feelings regarding those, Scott. The point is the mother acted foolishly and irresponsibly in ignoring the bishop's counsel and bringing this old man into her home and having him sleep in the same bed with her son. And the bishop did not do the abusing. I puzzled as to what you're trying to show with this example. The others I haven't had time to look at yet. But perhaps we can save time if you can say which of them are examples of bishops abusing youth during interviews in their offices, which is what I specifically asked for.
ALarson Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 38 minutes ago, ttribe said: Don't hold your breath; it's unlikely they'll read them. I agree. And if Scott does read them, he will most likely still find a reason to defend the abusers (especially if they were Bishops or church leaders.) Too bad and I won't expect more, but I do hope he'll at least spend the time to read the cases (he insisted on having them posted) and that he will at least see that there can be an issue with trusting youth being alone with some adult church leaders
ALarson Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The point is the mother acted foolishly and irresponsibly in ignoring the bishop's counsel and bringing this old man into her home and having him sleep in the same bed with her son. 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? 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And the bishop did not do the abusing. I puzzled as to what you're trying to show with this example. 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. 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The others I haven't had time to look at yet. But perhaps we can save time if you can say which of them are examples of bishops abusing youth during interviews in their offices, which is what I specifically asked for. 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. Edited August 17, 2017 by ALarson
Bobbieaware Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: He abused other children too (which shows you really haven't looked into Curtis as he'd already been excommunicated for molesting children prior to what Bobbieaware posted). But, you're not disappointing in that you're already finding ways to discount these numerous cases of child abuse. Amazing. That was the reason why the bishop thought it was a bad idea to have Curtis move in, but back in those days a sin for which someone had been forgiven was supposed to be kept in strict confidence by the bishop. I suppose the bishop's big mistake was not being forceful enough in his counsel and should have made it painfully clear that under no circumstances should Curtis be allowed to move in. But the problem there is that giving such forceful direction would only naturally cast suspicions on the old man and possibly instigate gossip. I believe the Church has a different way of handling such situations now. By the way, wouldn't the law of averages suggest there would have to be at least a few cases of abuse of this sort amongst all the millions of active members? 1
Calm Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) "will most likely still find a reason to defend the abusers (especially if they were Bishops or church leaders.)" Totally uncalled for. Edited August 17, 2017 by Calm
ALarson Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: That was the reason why the bishop thought it was a bad idea to have Curtis move in, but back in those days a sin for which someone had been forgiven was supposed to be kept in strict confidence by the bishop. I suppose the bishop's big mistake was not being forceful enough in his counsel and should have made it painfully clear that under no circumstances should Curtis be allowed to move in. Well, that's on the Bishop. But this man had abused many, many other children and had been excommunicated for this. You are only talking about one of his cases. How about all of the other children that he abused?
ALarson Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Calm said: "will most likely still find a reason to defend the abusers (especially if they were Bishops or church leaders.)" Totally uncalled for. Have you been reading his responses? The point is the mother acted foolishly and irresponsibly in ignoring the bishop's counsel and bringing this old man into her home and having him sleep in the same bed with her son. 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And the bishop did not do the abusing. I puzzled as to what you're trying to show with this example. Edited August 17, 2017 by ALarson
ALarson Posted August 17, 2017 Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) I'm done on this thread. First we get the response from Bobbieaware and Scott blaming the victim's Mother instead of the man who abused this young boy and the church leaders who knew this man abused children but didn't warn the Mother. Then calm shows up and defends Scott. Wow. I will be paying attention though to see if Scott actually reads all the links I posted (that he asked repeatedly for) and how he responds (if he does). Child abuse is a very emotional topic for me (especially child abuse), so I will no longer be responding here. Edited August 17, 2017 by ALarson
Recommended Posts