Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

 This man was accused by 21 different victims of sexually abusing them and he confessed to many of these crimes (to several Bishops over the years). 

You should know that this is not a case of just one young boy being abused because his Mother allowed the 87 year old man to share a bed with her son.  There were many, many other children involved whose Mothers did not allow that.

The case in question involved the abuse of one boy, who allowed an 87 year old man to share a bed with her son.

How is the church responsible for that?

 

[Abulafia]

Just now, Danzo said:

Facts please.  We all know your opinion.

Read the book. I gave an excerpt above. Did you miss it?

[Abulafia]

Just now, Danzo said:

The case in question involved the abuse of one boy, who allowed an 87 year old man to share a bed with her son.

How is the church responsible for that?

 

Read the book. I gave an excerpt above. Did you miss it?

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The case in question involved the abuse of one boy, who allowed an 87 year old man to share a bed with her son.

How is the church responsible for that?

 

There were many other children who were abused. This man had confessed to abusing other children and had been excommunicated from the church because of his confessions.  He was re-baptized by the time the Mother and her son met him.  His case is just the one that received all of the publicity (because of the lawsuit).  However, there were many other children abused and he did admit to that abuse.  He was also convicted of child abuse and was in prison when he died.

In the trial, evidence was presented showing that he moved around and was given callings where he worked with the youth.  I think it could be that the Bishops felt he had been forgiven and thought that his past shouldn't be revealed. I think they believed this is how it should be handled.  In the end, it resulted with more boys being abused.

But this Mother should have been warned to not take this man into her home when she had a young boy.

I'm grateful more safeguards have been put in place now and leaders handle abuse cases differently (this was years ago).  But it's awful to blame this Mother for her son being so horribly abused.  I agree that it's odd she allowed them to share a room (after taking this man in as a renter), but there's no way a Bishop today would allow that to happen, IMO (at least I hope not).

Edited September 25, 2018 by ALarson

[Danzo]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

but there's no way a Bishop today would allow that to happen, IMO (at least I hope not).

What could a Bishop do today to stop a woman from taking in a renter and having him share a bed with her son?

Do you, as part of the interview process ask if anyone is renting a bed and sharing it with her son?

Does anyone?

Do people make it a practice to ask for a Bishop's recommendation before taking on boarders?

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

What could a Bishop do today to stop a woman from taking in a renter and having him share a bed with her son?

The Bishop knew he had confessed to repeatedly abusing other children and that he had been excommunicated for it.  Iirc, he actually recommended this single Mother take this older man in as a renter (because she needed the money and he needed a place to live).  Apparently, the Bishop believed this confessed child abuser was too old (87 years) to sexually perform anymore and that the little boy in this household would be safe.  

Do you honestly believe this would still happen today?  I certainly hope not!!!

Edited September 25, 2018 by ALarson

[Danzo]

Just now, ALarson said:

The Bishop knew he had confessed to repeatedly abusing other children and had been excommunicated for it.  Iirc, he actually recommended this single Mother take this older man in as a renter (because she needed the money).  Apparently, he believed this confessed child abuser was too old to sexually perform anymore and that the little boy in this household would be safe.  

Do you honestly believe this would still happen today?  I certainly hope not!!!

"Before bringing Mr. Curtis into her home, Mr. Slader  said, Mrs. Scott sought advice from a local Mormon bishop, who advised the family against it because it would be too much work, but who did not inform them of the earlier accusations."

"Mr. Keetch, the lawyer for the church, quoted the bishop who advised the Scotts as saying in a deposition that he had known of no abuse accusations against Mr. Curtis."

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/05/us/mormons-paying-3-million-to-settle-sex-abuse-case.html

Mrs Scott was advised against it by the bishop (Although the bishop said he didn't know about the abuse allegations)

I think the record annotations and electronic transfers of membership records would allow the bishop to know about the prior history sooner and hopefully this occurrence becomes rarer. Remember that all of this happened in the days before records were transmitted electronically, I remember when it used to take months to get a membership record. 

One of the loopholes in the church record system is that there would be no record if the person had resigned his or her membership record, was not a member or had been excommunicated.  

There is a person who attends our ward who had been excommunicated for child abuse.  Because he was excommunicated, he didn't request his records when he came in.  This resulted in a bit of delay before the bishop found out (Nothing bad happened).  Some people were upset because they found out about it before the bishop did (through the sex offender registry).   

 

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, Danzo said:

"Before bringing Mr. Curtis into her home, Mr. Slader  said, Mrs. Scott sought advice from a local Mormon bishop, who advised the family against it because it would be too much work, but who did not inform them of the earlier accusations."

"Mr. Keetch, the lawyer for the church, quoted the bishop who advised the Scotts as saying in a deposition that he had known of no abuse accusations against Mr. Curtis."

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/05/us/mormons-paying-3-million-to-settle-sex-abuse-case.html

Mrs Scott was advised against it by the bishop (Although the bishop said he didn't know about the abuse allegations)

I think the record annotations and electronic transfers of membership records would allow the bishop to know about the prior history sooner and hopefully this occurrence becomes rarer. Remember that all of this happened in the days before records were transmitted electronically, I remember when it used to take months to get a membership record. 

One of the loopholes in the church record system is that there would be no record if the person had resigned his or her membership record, was not a member or had been excommunicated.  

There is a person who attends our ward who had been excommunicated for child abuse.  Because he was excommunicated, he didn't request his records when he came in.  This resulted in a bit of delay before the bishop found out (Nothing bad happened).  Some people were upset because they found out about it before the bishop did (through the sex offender registry).   

 

I'm not going to argue with you about this case as you obviously are not real familiar with all of the details (and there's much more than what you quoted above....it went on for years).  You have not read the book (and it is well documented and one can determine the facts from reading it). 

This man abused many, many children and confessed to abusing them.  He was excommunicated from the church for this confessed abuse.  And yet, leaders allowed this single Mother to take him into her home where he once again horribly abused a small boy.  If you want to blame the Mother, go ahead.  But IMO, that's shameful and wrong to do.  It was proven from the records that this Bishop was aware that this man had abused other children (even though he initially denied it as you quote above).  This man abused 5 young boys in the ward he lived in just before moving to this ward.

The facts are, that he did not just abuse this one little boy.  That is just the one case that was publicized.  He horribly abused a great many children during his lifetime and he confessed to much of it, was excommunicated and ended up in prison because of it.  There was neglect on the part of many of his church leaders, IMO (who would believe him that he was sorry and had repented and then allow him in callings that gave him access to other children to abuse).

When you haven't even read the documentation or history of what took place over the years and only want to focus on this one case, I'm not going to even try to have a serious, honest discussion with you regarding this man and what he repeatedly did.

Moving on now.... 

Edited September 25, 2018 by ALarson

[Danzo]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It was proven in court that this Bishop was aware that this man had abused other children (even though he initially denied it as you quote above).  

 

How was it proven in court?

The case didn't go to trial.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

How was it proven in court?

The case didn't go to trial.

It came out in the records that the Bishop had (and I should have stated in the legal case).  I'll correct that.

But now I'm moving on.....

You are only focused on this one case and there were many, many children who this man abused over the years (are you going to blame all of their Mothers for them being abused too?).  He confessed much of the abuse to church leaders who worked with him and then believed he'd repented and thought he could be trusted to serve in scouts or other positions where he had access to children.  They were wrong because he continued his horrible abuse of many other children. I believe that would not happen today with all of the safeguards and policies in place now.  That's a good thing.

Read the book and research the actual history and documentation of the many cases over the years.  

I'm off of here now for the evening.

Edited September 25, 2018 by ALarson

[Nemesis]

Stay on topic.  Political posts are going g to be removed.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

The case is public record.

no need to read a one sided book to get the facts of the case.

Who in their right mind lets an older adult sleep with their child?

 

And a stranger at that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

 This man was accused by 21 different victims of sexually abusing them and he confessed to many of these crimes (to several Bishops over the years). 

You should know that this is not a case of just one young boy being abused because his Mother allowed the 87 year old man to share a bed with her son.  There were many, many other children involved whose Mothers did not allow that.

So please don't try to blame one Mother (who allowed the man to rent from her) for this man's choices over the years to abuse many children.

Who’s blaming her for his choices “over the years”? There’s quite enough onus attached to making her son share a bed with an adult stranger. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I shan't be posting here for much longer Smac. This venue is a shadow of its former self. It seems like an echo chamber nowadays. 

I think you’ve been treated pretty well here. 

[Tacenda]

Haven't listened yet, but thought it may be of interest since it appears to me to be her first interview. 

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

The Bishop knew he had confessed to repeatedly abusing other children and that he had been excommunicated for it.  Iirc, he actually recommended this single Mother take this older man in as a renter (because she needed the money and he needed a place to live).  Apparently, the Bishop believed this confessed child abuser was too old (87 years) to sexually perform anymore and that the little boy in this household would be safe.  

Do you honestly believe this would still happen today?  I certainly hope not!!!

CFR that this was proved and not just claimed.  My understanding was the Bishop said he told her not to take him in, but she did anyway.  Also that he claimed to have learned about the abuse after she asked him for his advice, though there were leaders elsewhere that knew of it.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR that this was proved and not just claimed.  My understanding was the Bishop said he told her not to take him in, but she did anyway.  Also that he claimed to have learned about the abuse after she asked him for his advice, though there were leaders elsewhere that knew of it.

I know the CFR isn’t for me, but I remembered discussing this before and found the thread.  I’m reading it again now.

Heres where I started:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69411-proposed-changes-recommended-for-reporting-confessed-child-abuse/?do=findComment&comment=1209746456

Here’s a quote:

    “But internal Mormon documents, which The Oregonian obtained Aug. 17 from a public court file, memorialize both a 1982 disciplining of Curtis for, in the words of the church documents, "homosexual actions" and the 1983 excommunication for "homosexuality/child molesting." The words "child molesting" had been crossed out with a pen. (The Oregonian, September 5, 2001, p. B9)”

Wouldn't the Bishop you’re asking about know of this or see it in his church records?  Also wouldn’t have Curtis’s past Bishops have warned his current Bishop not to allow him around young boys since he’d confessed to abusing so many others in the past?

I don’t want to get drawn into this discussion again, but thought I’d post this at least.  I’ll read through this older thread, but have a lot going on right now and can’t be on here much.  Hope this helps though!

[Abulafia]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you’ve been treated pretty well here. 

I said nothing about how I have been treated Scott. I think you are projecting. Really. This is a Mormon board, with mainly LDS posters. I get the dynamics. What I said  was it is a *shadow of its formal self* and an *echo chamber*. That's what I wrote. That's what I meant.

I already said the issue of abuse would bring me out of the woodwork. I'll just go back into it pretty soon is all! I have a life to live off Mormon Boards. 

[Abulafia]

JulieM. I don't believe anyone here other than ALarson and myself, have read the book, which is a faithful reconstruction of the events. There were many, many victims. Manny Saban provided proof that the Bishop was told in 1978/9. 

"He’d told his mother what Frank did to him. While she may not have believed him initially, eventually Raquel had told her Mormon bishop what Frank Curtis did to young boys, but to no avail." - The Sins of Brother Curtis by Lisa Davis.

The bishops were told to claim priest/penitent privilege, even though the information wasn't garnered under a priest/penitent setting. 

 

"In each deposition, Ernst or one of his associates refused to allow the Mormons to answer question after question by claiming clergy-penitent privilege." - The Sins of Brother Curtis by Lisa Davis.

 

[Abulafia]

To bring it back on topic, I think Wells will claim priest/penitent privilege in the case of McKenna Denson. The church are already denying any knowledge of a meeting with Elder Asay, so McKenna will have to prove via other means, but there will still be no ones word but hers as to what was said.  

I would hope that we could all agree, rightly or wrongly, that the institutional church is about protecting itself however strong the case of the victims. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I would hope that we could all agree, rightly or wrongly, that the institutional church is about protecting itself however strong the case of the victims. 

You hope that we share your jaundiced presumption of evil? Well, I guess everyone needs a little hope in his or her life ... 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JulieM said:

I know the CFR isn’t for me, but I remembered discussing this before and found the thread.  I’m reading it again now.

Heres where I started:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69411-proposed-changes-recommended-for-reporting-confessed-child-abuse/?do=findComment&comment=1209746456

Here’s a quote:

    “But internal Mormon documents, which The Oregonian obtained Aug. 17 from a public court file, memorialize both a 1982 disciplining of Curtis for, in the words of the church documents, "homosexual actions" and the 1983 excommunication for "homosexuality/child molesting." The words "child molesting" had been crossed out with a pen. (The Oregonian, September 5, 2001, p. B9)”

Wouldn't the Bishop you’re asking about know of this or see it in his church records?  Also wouldn’t have Curtis’s past Bishops have warned his current Bishop not to allow him around young boys since he’d confessed to abusing so many others in the past?

I don’t want to get drawn into this discussion again, but thought I’d post this at least.  I’ll read through this older thread, but have a lot going on right now and can’t be on here much.  Hope this helps though!

Thanks. I think it is important to know when annotations were required to be put on records and when the policy barring those with molestation accusations (proved and unproven if there is a difference) was enacted, so if you come across that info, please share it. 

Also would be interesting to know why "child molesting" was crossed out.  Back in the 80s, I knew of those in and out of the Church that assumed homosexual implied child molestor  Was it crossed out because someone thought it was in error (that it shouldn’t be assumed) or for some other reason?

I have no doubt errors were made in the past when knowledge of abuse and policies were different, both in and out of the Church. My memory of reading the papers connected with them is that I believed there were errors made by former leaders in communication, but I was still open on the bishop of the Scotts as there was conflicting evidence on what he knew when and his actual advice   Too late tonight to reread that thread to refresh my memory and I may be wrong in my recall (as always). 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Calm

[Abulafia]

35 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You hope that we share your jaundiced presumption of evil? Well, I guess everyone needs a little hope in his or her life ... 

When has the church ever admitted liability?

[Abulafia]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And a stranger at that. 

No. He wasn't a stranger. He had already lived with the family with the husband and wife giving up their room to him. They did this as an active family who were concerned by a man who seemed lovely, but lonely.  He cooked for them regularly.  But spent too much money. He left and then returned. Not wanting the previous sleeping arrangements  they put him in with one of their sons. Curtis was very elderly by this time. He was a high priest and trusted member of the church. They had no reason to suspect untoward behaviour. That you would think a mother would intentionally put her child in harms way is offensive to the majority of mothers out there. Deeply offensive.

All this shows Scott, is that you haven't read the book.

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

That you would think a mother would intentionally put her child in harms way is offensive to the majority of mothers out there. Deeply offensive.

That you would think -- and repeatedly assert -- that the institutional Church would intentionally put a child in harm's way is offensive to a majority of Latter-day Saints. Deeply offensive.

Or does this only work one way?