Proposed Changes Recommended For Reporting Confessed Child Abuse

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He was serving as a Sunday School teacher at the time Scott invited him to live with them (they were "fellow Sunday School teachers" from her statement).  She must have been a single Mom from what I can tell.

He was 87 years old at that time and again according to her statement, "expressed a desire to live out his final days in a family setting rather than the retirement home he was living in,".

I had read somewhere that he died in prison (serving out the sentence for this abuse), but have you read that he got out and died elsewhere?  Maybe they let him out before he died....

But the Church says he was in no leadership position, so I think .i would like to see something else confirming he was a current SS teacher since he had been in that ward.

If she was a single mom, to me it looks like she was requiring her kid to sacrifice so she could feel good about herself or save money.  It makes more sense to move her son into her room and set up some privacy there  or she move on to the couch if she was worried about the old man's comfort.  Or at least take the time to get a spare mattress so they were not in the same bed...that she wouldn't even do that for an 11 year old is a huge red flag to me about how much attention she was giving her son.  Mattresses on the floor works fine even in cramped situations (speaking from experience).  You can just fold them up against the wall or stash behind a couch or slide under a bed.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Calm

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, changed said:

This thread hits close to home.  My kids are actually in a court case right now in which a former bishopric member is the pedophile.  It's in the news already, although has not been connected to the LDS church yet although by the end of it I'm sure it will be.  It involves boy scouts, members of the ward, hidden cameras, and a LARGE number of children whose videos are now circulating among other perverts on the internet.  Some of the videos including children being molested.  It's worse than merely being molested - it's recorded molestation that was then sold so for the rest of their lives the videos are out there for everyone to watch.  My kids know something is up, but do not know they are in the videos - I think faces were photo shopped in most of the videos, and if this is the case, I'm hoping my kids never find out about it.  The most troubling thing with all of this, was this was happening while the person served in the bishopric.  His wife was also serving - as RS president.  This, in a church that is supposed to be led by God?  It also involves a few things in a patriarchal blessing... Currently I am forced to continue going to church as leaving church at this point would be revealing and thus damaging to my kids.  I'm currently very angry at God, and in consideration of so very many other situations that are and have happened in the world, now believe God to be an evil lying perverted hateful *******.  Outer-darkness sounds pretty damn good to me as it is the only place where no one can touch or hurt anyone.

Your pain is real.  The consequences will follow your children for life.  The Master spoke of millstones and being hurled into the sea for those who offend the little ones.

And, no, G-d didn't do this.  Monsters abusing their freedom of moral choice do this.  And no matter how hard we try to come up with procedures and protections, the monsters still figure out how to bypass them, because that's what monsters do.

I cannot teach my 7-8 year old primary class without another adult present, or a door open  ... and we're right next to the rowdy relief society, who always interrupt and disturb our lessons.  Bishops call shadows to clandestinely keep track of people with records of monstrous behaviors whenever they are in Church buildings. Problem is, we cannot know who the monsters are until they act as monsters.  People can have monstrous feelings, but keep them under control.  Is G-d to require that even those of us with monstrous feelings but never act upon them to be treated as monsters?  Are we?

I weep for you.  I weep for your children and all the others affected.  I weep for the monster's spouse.  I weep for his children, his parents, his siblings, their spouses, their children.

Those of us who have ourselves endured monstrosity or who have had our children have to endure it, as well as the long-term consequences, understand, are triggered by, and seek to comfort you, them, and all the others.  That's what we do.  Because we all promised G-d that we would comfort those in need of comfort, mourn with those who mourn, and all the rest.

Be comforted.  Find strength in knowing you are not alone.  Don't choose to be alone, hiding in the basement, holding your children under the weight of your body, a kitchen knife in your hand, hoping for the monsters finally to pass by.  There is light out there.  And love.

[Jeanne]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

Thank you! I saw him on facebook a few years ago an blocked him

Oh Duncan...I am just in tears..I have never been acquainted with anyone that has been through this.  You have always been my hero here on the board.  What a strong person you are!  I so admire you.  God bless.

Changed...your story brought tears..I wish for you and your family the best outcome in all of this. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by Jeanne

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

But the Church says he was in no leadership position, so I think .i would like to see something else confirming he was a current SS teacher since he had been in that ward.

If she was a single mom, to me it looks like she was requiring her kid to sacrifice so she could feel good about herself or save money.  It makes more sense to move her son into her room and set up some privacy there  or she move on to the couch if she was worried about the old man's comfort.  Or at least take the time to get a spare mattress so they were not in the same bed...that she wouldn't even do that for an 11 year old is a huge red flag to me about how much attention she was giving her son.  Mattresses on the floor works fine even in cramped situations (speaking from experience).  You can just fold them up against the wall or stash behind a couch or slide under a bed.

I agree that it's very strange how he shared a room (and bed) with the son.  I have to wonder if he was a grandfather figure for the son (he was 87 years old) and the Mother probably wouldn't have even thought about sexual molestation.  However, today we would as things are much more out in the open regarding sexual abuse and more is known about different cases, age of abusers and so on.  I'm sure she now knows how foolish it was to think that was a good idea.

As far as his calling, I have read several places that he was serving as a Sunday School teacher.  I would not consider that to be a leadership position, but I don't know which age group he was teaching.

Edited August 18, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, changed said:

This thread hits close to home.  My kids are actually in a court case right now in which a former bishopric member is the pedophile.  It's in the news already, although has not been connected to the LDS church yet although by the end of it I'm sure it will be.  It involves boy scouts, members of the ward, hidden cameras, and a LARGE number of children whose videos are now circulating among other perverts on the internet.  Some of the videos including children being molested.  It's worse than merely being molested - it's recorded molestation that was then sold so for the rest of their lives the videos are out there for everyone to watch.  My kids know something is up, but do not know they are in the videos - I think faces were photo shopped in most of the videos, and if this is the case, I'm hoping my kids never find out about it.  The most troubling thing with all of this, was this was happening while the person served in the bishopric.  His wife was also serving - as RS president.  This, in a church that is supposed to be led by God?  It also involves a few things in a patriarchal blessing... Currently I am forced to continue going to church as leaving church at this point would be revealing and thus damaging to my kids.  I'm currently very angry at God, and in consideration of so very many other situations that are and have happened in the world, now believe God to be an evil lying perverted hateful *******.  Outer-darkness sounds pretty damn good to me as it is the only place where no one can touch or hurt anyone.

Oh wow, changed.  I am heartbroken for you and your family.  I'm so sorry you're all going through this.  Your family is in my thoughts and prayers.

Edited August 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Oh Duncan...I am just in tears..I have never been acquainted with anyone that has been through this.  You have always been my hero here on the board.  What a strong person you are!  I so admire you.  God bless.

Changed...your story brought tears..I wish for you and your family the best outcome in all of this. 

oh, thank you!!! I appreciate that

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree that it's very strange how he shared a room (and bed) with the son.  I have to wonder if he was a grandfather figure for the son (he was 87 years old) and the Mother probably wouldn't have even thought about sexual molestation.  However, today we would as things are much more out in the open regarding sexual abuse and more is known about different cases, age of abusers and so on.  I'm sure she now knows how foolish it was to think that was a good idea.

As far as his calling, I have read several places that he was serving as a Sunday School teacher.  I would not consider that to be a leadership position, but I don't know which age group he was teaching.

It occurred early 90s...That was just after my daughter was born.  There was a big difference even in the 8 years from my son's birth.  I was already hearing from parents 'no sleepovers' etc.  there were a number of child abuse cases in the news the previous 5 years:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/innocence/etc/other.html

Edited August 18, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree that it's very strange how he shared a room (and bed) with the son.  I have to wonder if he was a grandfather figure for the son (he was 87 years old) and the Mother probably wouldn't have even thought about sexual molestation.  However, today we would as things are much more out in the open regarding sexual abuse and more is known about different cases, age of abusers and so on.  I'm sure she now knows how foolish it was to think that was a good idea.

As far as his calling, I have read several places that he was serving as a Sunday School teacher.  I would not consider that to be a leadership position, but I don't know which age group he was teaching.

Sandra Scott said he had unlimited access to young children.  If SS, that would have been 12 years of age and up.  Not usually what I think of as young.

There is a good chance they are just repeating the claim or he had been a SS teacher in previous wards:

"Although Sandra Scott has said Curtis was a Sunday school teacher, no one else remembers him teaching children, Keetch said."

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/child-abuse-case-settled-by-lds-church/article_34182de2-1905-5753-a9d8-7130448754da.html

Edited August 18, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.

I agree with this. After his conviction he should have been locked up to live out the rest of his sorry life in prison. 

But if (and it's a big if) the bishop was guilty of negligence, the negligence of the mother was ten times worse. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sandra Scott said he had unlimited access to young children.  If SS, that would have been 12 years of age and up.  Not usually what I think of as young.

There is a good chance they are just repeating the claim or he had been a SS teacher in previous wards:

"Although Sandra Scott has said Curtis was a Sunday school teacher, no one else remembers him teaching children, Keetch said."

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/child-abuse-case-settled-by-lds-church/article_34182de2-1905-5753-a9d8-7130448754da.html

I think he'd served as a scout leader as well (not sure if it was in the current ward where the Scotts lived).  I have read that he was a Sunday School teacher from a few sources.  But once again, I don't consider that to be a leadership position (maybe the scout position would be considered as such since they are called "scout leaders").  

There were other victims who came forward and made statements (IIRC).  Maybe some of them included which callings he held.  Either way, he did seem to move and change wards, so I don't know if he always held a calling.  The moving around seemed to be a pattern for him.  I wonder what calling he had in the previous ward where he abused 5 other boys?  That would be interesting to find out.  I don't have a lot of time on here today, but could try to search later.  

Edited August 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think he'd served as a scout leader as well (not sure if it was in the current ward where the Scotts lived).  I have read that he was a Sunday School teacher.  But once again, I don't consider that to be a leadership position (maybe the scout position as they are called "scout leaders" would be considered such).  

There were other victims who came forward and made statements.  Maybe some of them included which callings he held.  Either way, he did seem to move and change wards so I don't know if he always held a calling.  The moving around seemed to be a pattern for him.  I wonder what calling he had in the previous ward where he abused 5 other boys?  That would be interesting to find out.  I don't have a lot of time on here today, but could try to search later.  

Were the victims who came forward from that ward or previous wards?

If the bishop was aware as it appears he was, it makes a huge difference if he was in a calling at that time or not.  The Church's lawyer said no one could remember him teaching kids, not just leadership positions....an easily disproven claim so seems strange to make it unless true.

Curtis could have lied to Scott about substituting, she could have been confused, or lying herself.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Calm

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, changed said:

This thread hits close to home.  My kids are actually in a court case right now in which a former bishopric member is the pedophile.  It's in the news already, although has not been connected to the LDS church yet although by the end of it I'm sure it will be.  It involves boy scouts, members of the ward, hidden cameras, and a LARGE number of children whose videos are now circulating among other perverts on the internet.  Some of the videos including children being molested.  It's worse than merely being molested - it's recorded molestation that was then sold so for the rest of their lives the videos are out there for everyone to watch.  My kids know something is up, but do not know they are in the videos - I think faces were photo shopped in most of the videos, and if this is the case, I'm hoping my kids never find out about it.  The most troubling thing with all of this, was this was happening while the person served in the bishopric.  His wife was also serving - as RS president.  This, in a church that is supposed to be led by God?  It also involves a few things in a patriarchal blessing... Currently I am forced to continue going to church as leaving church at this point would be revealing and thus damaging to my kids.  I'm currently very angry at God, and in consideration of so very many other situations that are and have happened in the world, now believe God to be an evil lying perverted hateful *******.  Outer-darkness sounds pretty damn good to me as it is the only place where no one can touch or hurt anyone.

I am so very sorry...words are inadequate.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Were the victims who came forward from that ward or previous wards?

If the bishop was aware as it appears he was, it makes a huge difference if he was in a calling at that time or not.  The Church's lawyer said no one could remember him teaching kids, not just leadership positions....an easily disproven claim so seems strange to make it unless true.

Curtis could have lied to Scott about substituting, she could have been confused, or lying herself.

Of course those are all possibilities.  She described him as being a "fellow Sunday School teacher", I believe.  But he may have been a substitute.  I don't think there's any dispute that he at least served in some wards with the scouts and had callings issued to him.  I'd have to look more into what other callings he had, but am off of here now for awhile.

He was re-ordained a High Priest at one point after his excommunication for child abuse and he was re-baptized.  I don't know which ward that occurred in though.

 Maybe others know more about that part of the case and can comment with more help.....

Edited August 18, 2017 by ALarson

[rongo]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Assuming you have all relevant information, then the answer to your question turns on the setting in which and source from which the Bishop got the information.  If the sole and only source was the perpetrator and the setting was such that a reasonable person would expect the privilege to be applicable in that setting, then yes, the Bishop did a bad thing and, at very least, is at risk of discipline by the Church.  

The bishop's source was the perpetrator himself. Discipline by the Church was never broached or hinted at. He had him tell three of the five sets of victim family parents on his own volition, before calling the hotline (the other two sets live somewhere else). He was simply told by the hotline to cease doing anything else in the matter.

ETA: On what grounds would a bishop be disciplined? I think that's a real stretch, and I can see that being a real conundrum for the high council in deliberation, not just a rubber stamp for a pre-determined outcome.

Quote

At worst, the perpetrator could sue him and the Church and rightfully recover damages.  The Church has defenses because of its training programs, online and telephonic resources and handbook, but that never stopped anybody from suing the Church, which is an attractive target because of all of those donated $$.

I really appreciate your perspective and experience with this. I know that the Church (or a corporation or company or anybody/anything else with deep pockets) is an attractive target for lawsuits, and that anyone can sue anyone for anything. I'm still very skeptical that a bishop or the Church can successfully be sued (i.e., and win) for telling the police or making the person tell the police about his serious crime(s). Certainly, I could see how this might come into play in a libel/slander matter. Are there any real-life examples of this outside of hypotheticals?

Quote

And smac is absolutely right to elaborate on the societal costs of breaking the seal

I *really* appreciate both your and smac's explanation of the history and ramifications of the sanctity of clergy privilege. And I absolutely agree with your (and Kirton McConkie lawyers') insistence that we safeguard and not casually cede this important right. I definitely have a lot more perspective and nuance on this than before.

Edited August 18, 2017 by rongo
ETA

[Calm]

" don't have a lot of time on here today, but could try to search later"

I have a whole day without being in the car, so hoping I can get my desk cleaned off now I am finally done with Mom's major financial issues ( only took us 2 and a half years).  I think I will swear off posting for a day or two as I need to get stuff done before the basement repair starts next week followed by another round of doctor appts.  Not sure I will have self control...feel free to repeat CFR s if I miss them.

Plus reading these abuse reports over and over in order to determine what is really known/confirmed and what is just repeated claims is depressing and trying to determine how credible people are is not a pleasant occupation, I think I am burned out for now.  

And the personal stories of posters here is heartbreaking.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, changed said:

This thread hits close to home.  My kids are actually in a court case right now in which a former bishopric member is the pedophile.  It's in the news already, although has not been connected to the LDS church yet although by the end of it I'm sure it will be.  It involves boy scouts, members of the ward, hidden cameras, and a LARGE number of children whose videos are now circulating among other perverts on the internet.  Some of the videos including children being molested.  It's worse than merely being molested - it's recorded molestation that was then sold so for the rest of their lives the videos are out there for everyone to watch.  My kids know something is up, but do not know they are in the videos - I think faces were photo shopped in most of the videos, and if this is the case, I'm hoping my kids never find out about it.  The most troubling thing with all of this, was this was happening while the person served in the bishopric.  His wife was also serving - as RS president.  This, in a church that is supposed to be led by God?  It also involves a few things in a patriarchal blessing... Currently I am forced to continue going to church as leaving church at this point would be revealing and thus damaging to my kids.  I'm currently very angry at God, and in consideration of so very many other situations that are and have happened in the world, now believe God to be an evil lying perverted hateful *******.  Outer-darkness sounds pretty damn good to me as it is the only place where no one can touch or hurt anyone.

I can't imagine what this must be like, i'm sorry you're dealing with this, best to you and your family

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course those are all possibilities.  She described him as being a "fellow Sunday School teacher", I believe.  But he may have been a substitute.  I don't think there's any dispute that he at least served in some wards with the scouts and had callings issued to him.  I'd have to look more into what other callings he had, but am off of here now for awhile.

He was re-ordained a High Priest at one point after his excommunication for child abuse and he was re-baptized.  I don't know which ward that occurred in though.

 Maybe others know more about that part of the case and can comment with more help.....

You don't get reordained, iirc, just just get blessings restored in one ordinance.

There are two issues for me...long term treatment and communication by the Church and what Bishop Foster himself was responsible for.  I am currently looking at the second, which is why I think it is important to determine what happened when.  He is not responsible for what happened prior to him becoming aware of Curtis' crimes.  I am also paying close attention to the mom's story to see how credible it is due to my bias against her I already explained from knowing a father in a similar situation who verbally abused his kids to avoid responsibility for himself.  There is a big red flag for me in that the mom seems to avoid anything of responsibility for what happened...no awareness of this happening in her small, cramped living situation.

Last post on this thread for a day I hope...

Edited August 18, 2017 by Calm

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

You don't get reordained, iirc, just just get blessings restored in one ordinance.

There are two issues for me...long term treatment and communication by the Church and what Bishop Foster himself was responsible for.  I am currently looking at the second, which is why I think it is important to determine what happened when.  He is not responsible for what happened prior to him becoming aware of Curtis' crimes.  I am also paying close attention to the mom's story to see how credible it is due to my bias against her I already explained from knowing a father in a similar situation who verbally abused his kids to avoid responsibility for himself.  There is a big red flag for me in that the mom seems to avoid anything of responsibility for what happened...no awareness of this happening in her small, cramped living situation.

Last post on this thread for a day I hope...

Correct on the "restored" blessings....I could have worded that better.  Either way, the leaders would have had to approve that happening, so it wouldn't surprise me if he also was issued callings.  I don't know how many entailed working with youth though.

I agree that his current Bishop was "not responsible for what happened prior to him becoming aware of Curtis' crimes".  How soon would Curtis' record arrived for this Bishop to read?  And, did he read it? Those are good questions and I don't know the answers.  But of course, his former Bishop in the previous ward holds some responsibility (where the 5 boys were sexually abused).  Did he pass on the information to this new Bishop?  There's a lot of responsibility to go around here (that former Bishop stated he reported the abuse to church leaders too, but he did not report it to police or authorities and he did not pursue punishing Curtis with a church court).  

I don't know if we can state that the Mom avoided "anything of responsibility for what happened".  I have to believe she has tremendous guilt over bringing that man into her home (and son's bed), and she should.  

The entire case is tragic and I see that much can be learned from it regarding many angles.

And now, I really have to get some work done! 

Edited August 18, 2017 by ALarson

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with this. After his conviction he should have been locked up to live out the rest of his sorry life in prison. 

But if (and it's a big if) the bishop was guilty of negligence, the negligence of the mother was ten times worse. 

Hard to be too hard on her.  How was she raised?  What horrors might she have endured that robbed her of common sense?  What pain might have numbed her to the oh-so-obvious?

The Bishop's hand in this affair, even if we have anything remotely resembling a clear picture, is quite minor, on that we quite agree.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Oh Duncan...I am just in tears..I have never been acquainted with anyone that has been through this.  You have always been my hero here on the board.  What a strong person you are!  I so admire you.  God bless.

Changed...your story brought tears..I wish for you and your family the best outcome in all of this. 

Ditto!!

[USU78]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

The bishop's source was the perpetrator himself. Discipline by the Church was never broached or hinted at. He had him tell three of the five sets of victim family parents on his own volition, before calling the hotline (the other two sets live somewhere else). He was simply told by the hotline to cease doing anything else in the matter.

ETA: On what grounds would a bishop be disciplined? I think that's a real stretch, and I can see that being a real conundrum for the high council in deliberation, not just a rubber stamp for a pre-determined outcome.

I really appreciate your perspective and experience with this. I know that the Church (or a corporation or company or anybody/anything else with deep pockets) is an attractive target for lawsuits, and that anyone can sue anyone for anything. I'm still very skeptical that a bishop or the Church can successfully be sued (i.e., and win) for telling the police or making the person tell the police about his serious crime(s). Certainly, I could see how this might come into play in a libel/slander matter. Are there any real-life examples of this outside of hypotheticals?

I *really* appreciate both your and smac's explanation of the history and ramifications of the sanctity of clergy privilege. And I absolutely agree with your (and Kirton McConkie lawyers') insistence that we safeguard and not casually cede this important right. I definitely have a lot more perspective and nuance on this than before.

There you go  ...  convincing the perpetrator tell others is just fine.  It's not like he's entitled to be Mirandized by the Bishop.  The perpetrator, on those facts, waived the privilege, and the Bishop [as well as the Church] is off the hook.  The advice to get the Bishop out of the middle of this matter at that point was correct, too.  It isn't his or the Church's job to do anything, even in jurisdictions where reporting is mandatory on certain people, beyond report upon waiver.

Thanks for clarifying.