Deseret News | Abuse lawsuit alleges widespread problems with Mormons, Boy Scouts

Reader comments
Abuse lawsuit alleges widespread problems with Mormons, Boy Scouts

154 comments | Read story

It's not denial or anger | 11:31 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

I know bad things happen all of the time in any religion, community, or country. The question is: How do we sustain, build, and support great programs / organizations that promote better ways for people to live and still deal with the problems people inevitably bring with them?

Everyone knows that the Catholics, the LDS, Baptists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., all frown on sexual abuse. None of them want abuse of any sort. We institute laws and programs to prevent it, but abuse still happens.

My fear is that we will soon be banned from hugging or even acknowledging our youth (as the new answer to protecting them). We will abandon programs that support and engage them in a positive way. Indeed, it could someday become so extreme that we simply become separated from our families as soon as we're born (in order to protect the kids from adults).

Crazy? I don't know...I am already very careful around youth of any sort - parents look at you with paranoid glares if you even smile anymore.

I'm not denying things happen - they do. How do we sustain community, human caring, and love despite the threats against us? Who can we trust?

Calling the Pot Black | 11:32 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

All you have to do is google Mr. Clark and you will find that he is just in this for the money.

A local paper said this when he was running for Governor, "In a fascinating profile at that time on Clark, Taylor Clark of Willamette Week wrote, ï¿½He is a sex offender who has made a mint defending the sexually abused, and heï¿½s also a former gay-rights advocate being paid to dismantle the biggest gay-rights victory in Oregon history. Clark sees no inconsistency, because in both cases he says he is motivated by the same dominating passion: disgust with the misuse of power. ï¿½I get to represent the little guy going up against the big guy,ï¿½ he says. ï¿½I absolutely love that, whether itï¿½s the church, the government, insurance companies, banks.ï¿½ï¿½

He has an axe to grind, but I find it hilarious that he himself is a sex offender and everyone is jumping on his band wagon. Somebody needs to sue him.

OH COME ON! | 11:38 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

I know the policies of the LDS church. If they know that something like this is going on, that person is automatically removed from his position and faces a church disciplinary council. WHAT A LOAD OF BULL! The church didn't know what was going on... that's all there is to it.

Comments continue below

Pot Black II | 11:43 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Here is what another paper report on Mr. Clark:

Kelly Clark is no slouch when it comes to making newspaper headlines. Oregon voters may have forgotten that back in 1992 Clark broke into an ex-girlfriend's house, disconnected the phone line and subjected her to what the courts characterized as "sexual contact without consent," according to Phil Stanford of the Portland Tribune.

MTinMD | 11:52 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Those casting aspersions at those claiming this isn't as bad as the earlier and ongoing Catholic problems, please try to follow. The Catholic clergy is hierarchical and professional. Priests are assigned to parishes by boards of higher-level clergy. When allegations of abuse came to light, those boards reassigned priests to other areas, apparently in the hope that new scenery would result in different outcomes. In the vast majority of cases, the problems just began anew. The Catholic church continued to reassign these people for decades, rather than take any meaningful action to prevent its continuation.

The LDS church, on teh other hand, makes its Scouting assignments at the local level. In the hierarchy that exists in the church, it is the immediate ecclesiastical leader (the bishop) that makes the assignment. No one farther up the church's leadership chain reviews the assignment. There are no mechanisms in place to reassign a Scout leader caught abusing children to another place. Instead, the local bishop and/or stake president notate the leader's church record, and that person should not be assigned to a calling involving children thereafter. To insinuate that the Church (SLC) knew about "all these abusers" and covered it up, is assinine.

Who's fault is it? | 11:57 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

This is Horrible, but let's take a moment to see who really is at fault here. The church can have all types of policies and regulations it wants, it is going to be up to the members enforce them. The Church call people based on a personal interview and a general vote, and because it is a Church and a volunteer activity it can not run background checks like other institutions. Thus the final check should always be with the parent since ultimately they take the child to the class or activity. The Parents should meet and get to know the leaders and see the type of people they are. When I taught Sunday school and lead scouts I new all the parents they knew me, they had been to my house, they new my wife and mi child, they've been to campouts with us and we always encouraged the kids to be careful everywhere. These are the type of things that we would talk about. When my little girl goes into young women I will be sure I know who her leaders are and pay very close attention. PARENTS this is what you have to do these days.

Micah Nielsen | 12:05 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Both the BSA and the LDS Church rely on unpaid volunteers to achieve their primary objectives: to help raise boys to grow up to be responsible men. The advantages (good citizens, hard workers, men of integretity)to our society provided by these organizations far out way the harm that has been done. Adults who abuse children are predators and will wear any disguise they can to achieve their objectives - even deceiving those people closest to them such as parents, spouses, and children. Because of past mistakes made by both organizations, today better checks and balances are in place to protect children from predators. This lawsuit will only achieve in punishing the current generation with the mistakes of past generations if a large financial settlement or penalty is imposed on these organizations.

Why isn't he suing the pornography industry; and movies, TV commericals and shows that glamorize the sexualization of children and self-indulgence?

Bob | 12:09 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

It is interesting to see many of these posts that are outraged because the attorney compared Mormon abuse to Catholic abuse. Why not be outraged at the fact that the abuse has occurred and is probably still occurring. I would suggest that more safeguards are needed (ie. criminal background checks) before someone receives a calling where they will be placed alone with young children. Unfortunately, a person cannot be trusted simply because they attend church.

ACLU | 12:11 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

To "Down With the ACLU". The ACLU is interested in guaranteeing the 1st amendment rights of all Americans. Sometimes you don't like what others have to say, but you can thank the ACLU for guaranteeing you the protections to run off at the mouth with your own ideas.

And by the way, they've got zilch to do with this case anyway.

Interesting | 12:13 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

This should mainly reinforce that the LDS church is not immune from statics. There are pediphiles in this church and every church.

Harry | 12:25 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Abuse can occur anywhere, and what permits it to persist is denial. I can remember in 1975 when incest was considered the "silent sin." There were many mothers who, in denial or whatever remained slient when their children were being abused. It was not until the mid-1980's when the effects of alcohol became known with regards to children of alcoholic parents. It is like second hand cigarette smoke today--aren't smoker's abusers causing asthma and respiratory problems in those around them? One thing can be certain with regards to institutions like the LDS Church and Scouting, and that is they never transferred known abusers from one unit to another or attempted to cover their actions. There is a difference when the institution has a hand in exploitation vs. the organization such as Scouting or the Church being exploited by pedophiles, etc as an opportunity to obtain victims. It is a matter of institutional deception vs. an individual acting deceptively within an organization and keeping their sins hidden to themselves. In one instance the individual perpetrator is protected by the institution, but in the LDS Church and Scouting exploitation would never be institutionally protected or intentionally covered up.

Hope | 12:48 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

I think this is a great discussion and it definitely needs to be discussed. I think as a church the lds are taught to be humble, and forgiving, but sometimes shouldn't be- especially when involving abuse. When mistakes are knowingly made there needs to be accountability- even with the church. Hopefully the the church will become better because of it.

Sign me up! | 1:00 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

So if I get abused by some guy that works for Microsoft can I sue Microsoft and Bill Gates? Who cares about the abuser, I just want my money, because that is what will make me feel true restitution. Oh and if he is Catholic can I go after the Vatican, I always wanted one of those gold statues. I sure could use some extra cash. What is Mr. Clark's website?

Ridiculus. Throw Mr. Dykes in Jail and throw away the key. And while your at it revoke Mr. Clark's right to practice law. This should be a criminal case and not a case against a religion or scout program sniffing out the deepest pockets. Restitution is seeing that man/abuser in jail for the rest of his life.

My sympathy goes out for any true victim of abuse.

East Coast | 1:20 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

I agree that this lawsuit seems like "armed robbery."

I think that the problems are societal rather than particular to our church. When this lawyer starts suing providers of pornography, school districts with teachers who have been convicted for abusing children, day care centers, YMCAs, sports teams, etc., and donating his entire profit to help the victims of childhood abuse, then I would believe that he is doing it for a good purpose.

My husband and I work hard to protect our children. We do not let them around unsupervised males of any age. We don't send them over to homes where we are at all uncomfortable with the grown-ups in the homes.

One major area of concern is that people in the schools and church (remember it's societal) treat us like we are real dim bats when we protest that one leader or teacher should not be alone with one child. We have had to do this repeatedly. We've approached primary presidents, scout leaders, a principal, teachers, and church leadership. They do not look after our children like we do.

We have to make sure our children are safe.

old carabou | 1:28 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

My father, a 70 in church is still active and was sunday School superintent for many years. My mother, sister, and I sat with our bishop and reported my Dad molesting my sister for years. Our stake president, bishop, and the bishop and stake president in my father's new ward did....NOTHING.... My father remarried and was caught red handed, (so to speak), with the new wife's 10 year old daughter molesting her. I have seen first hand over 50 years how the LDS church has handled molestation. They say all the right words, but do nothing until forced by lawsuits to correct and protect children. My father is still active and he has never been confronted by any authority at any time. My sister's life was ruined, our family divorced and we children live with an stigma of a child molester as a father, and a church that did, and does, little to protect these children against these persons. It is not money, it is justice. The organization that turned it's back on these issues are just as guilty, or more, than the persons violating these precious children. I have seen the response with my own eyes of the church.

attorney | 1:29 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

I think it's interesting (and unreasonable) that people mention that the attorney is doing this just for the money, rather than make the world a better place. Well, of course he is. So what? Should we disparage trash collectors because they do their job, not because they're interested in making the world a better, cleaner place, but because they have to support their families with the income the job provides?

G | 1:55 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

That is funny that a previous poster stated that the LDS church would not intentionally cover something like this up. I am in no way anti-LDS or anything, but it is important for everyone to acknolwedge that the people who run the LDS church like the peolpe who run other churches and institutions make mistakes. And yes, the LDS church spends money and time to cover things up. This law suit is not about the crimes of those who committed the sexual abuse. It is about the crimes of the individuals in the BSA and LDS organizations who did not notify the police about the sexual abuse or did other things to keep the cover up the crimes. To answer the question about being able to sue Microsoft if you are sued at Microsoft. The answer is of course, "yes", and you will win a settlement from Microsoft if can prove that the company did not take appropriate action once the abuse came to light.

Trey | 2:12 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

old carabou- I think your not being truly honest. You know as well as I do that if bishop knew this was happening they would not allow it to stand. Are you sure these things are correct and you aren't just out to slander the church? Get back to me on that one.

chillylilly | 3:38 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

There are so many problems with this lawsuit that if I were the judge I would throw it out immediately. First, can you really blame the LDS Church for something one of its members did when the Church adamantly opposes and teaches against this type of behavior? Not hardly. The only one who should take complete and full responsibility is the person that committed the act. Second, $25 million is a RIDICULOUS amount to ask for. I am not in any way demeaning the terrible effect abuse has on people, but I can tell you that if money can't buy happiness, it surely can't erase the memories of abuse! That lawyer is in it for himself and because he thinks the Church has money he wants to "make a statement". The only statements he is making though are that #1: he's greedy, and #2: the justice system is seriously flawed if someone can try to swindle $25 million dollars from a non-profit organization for something they should not be responsible for.

Survivor of Abuse | 3:46 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

As a "Survivor" of sexual abuse I can tell you that the perfect place for a perpetrator to hide is within the walls of his/her own home or church. Clark is doing what so often is witnessed in abuse cases. He is looking for something or someone other than the perpetrator to place blame onto. Perpetrators of abuse are experts at deceiving and manipulating others. That's why they are able to get away with it for so long. They deceive their spouses, their children, and even their victims. They do not tell the truth when they are confronted by their spouses or children or church leaders. Make the perpetrators accountable for their own crimes!

Steve | 4:16 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

It's the same old story-those who hate the church jump right on the bandwagon with the parasite attorney with claims that it is "Just what the church would do", without having anything besides a claim. The attorney wants the church financial records because he wants the church's MONEY. Individual responsibility and accountability are no longer a part of our society's lexicon or its understanding. What is it that trial lawyers contribute to our society, again?

LDS Abuse Witness | 5:16 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

When I confronted the woman she said, "This ward is a family so I have as much right as anyone to discipline any child who is misbehaving." Obviously what happened in my ward is an anamoly; I get that; but it happened. I would swear on a stack of Bibles, I would swear in a court of law, it happened. And for you to deny it - for you to say I'm making it up - what do I have to gain except your derision?

What you're missing... | 5:18 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

to those of you screening these posts....I find it simply incredible (rather abominable) that you screen the comments of those of us who question the status quo of the prevailing religion in this state ....

but allow the kind of vituperative venom that spews forth from the mouth of "faithful" members.

Really folks....you might want to take a look at the way members live their religion...then you shouldn't wonder why people are leaving the church in droves!!

Members are driving people are out...just like Christ did the money changers...and yet THEY are the "money changers"!!

and this is why I stopped going | 5:24 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

not only myself but two of my sisters were sexually abused at church, when the bishops were made aware nothing happened and I was told to forgive and move past this. As far as crazy members blocking you from leaving church and other craziness, it happens alot more than people might think, my first ward when I moved away from home the bishop came to visit, I stated I wasn't ready to come back to church his response was that I wasn't welcome anyways and he turned his back and walked away. This is why I stopped attending oh and that they teach one thing and do another.

Pot Black III | 6:02 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Hey "attorney"

You win for funniest comment on this subject. Maybe he is trying to make the world a better place. Well maybe if he wasn't a convicted sex offender himself, we might by that, but you are really stretching it. If we paid garbage men what attorney's make, your comment might make sense. But there is a big difference. Garbage men are taking out the trash, while attorney's are packaging it up and making it look pretty.

Recovering | 6:27 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

I don't know which is more amazing, the number of defenders of the Mormon church who want to preserve their belief by denying that abuse happens, or the number of people who have come forwrd with their accounts of having been abused and all the friends in leadership positions covering it up!? I was also abused sexually and got pregnant from it. The stake president encouraged me to give the baby up for adoption, but they just covered up the fact that the bishop did this to me. I can never go back to that church.

Educated Literate | 6:58 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Maybe it is time for the Church to re-institute IN SERVICE training. Many are put into callings with no clue as to how to do them. Perhaps inservice training in this instrance would include YPG training and the stewardship toward the Scouts.

However, looking at the postings the biggest difference between the Catholic lawsuit and the LDS is that the Catholic lawsuits involved their priests who were accused of doing the molesting. Scoutmasters do not have any ecumenical authority in the LDS Church like the Catholic priests. The alledged victim should sue the individual in civil court. However, when money is concerned the most Christlike person can change to a vengeful person.

active lds | 7:53 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

scouter 2 where in the world do you get the idea that i'm a man hater? I do hate "dirty old men" At 81 do you fit that category? Perhaps you need your eyesight checked and then re read my post.

reality | 8:10 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

My son was grabbed by the lapels and thrown up against a brick wall at church by his deacon's advisor. When I reported it to my Bishop, he basically called me a liar even though the perpetrator came to my husband in tears begging him not to press assault charges. We did not since my son wasn't injured and I didn't want to put the man's family through that. We did request he get anger management counseling. When the Bishop refuted my story, I spent about 5 minutes thinking I would never go back. I decided one man wasn't going to have that kind of power over my life and my family's well being. I've let the Lord deal with the mistakes this Bishop has made. Sadly, the advisor's wife eventually divorced him because of his vicious temper. I cannot hold the Church at large responsible for the mistakes of individuals. I don't know what was going on in their lives at that time. Luckily my son stayed active, served a mission married in the Temple. We explained at that time that a testimony cannot be based on someone else's agency or misuse of that agency.

to lds abuse witness | 8:20 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

I visit taught a lady from a foreign country who told me it wasn't until she joined the church and moved to the US that she realized it was wrong to abuse children. She told me in her country parents hit, punch, bite,scratch etc. to discipline their kids and no one cares. I've heard conference talks about the "incorrect traditions" of their fathers. I believe that qualifies as an incorrect tradition. She is now teaching others in her homeland that there is a better way, but sadly these things take a couple of generations to truly change. Even in America, abuse was ignored up until recently. Please go back, for your babies sake, you'll be glad you did. I had a bishop who didn't believe me either but I couldn't let him have that kind of control over my life or my family's future. I don't regret it, all these many years later as I watch my children grow, marry wonderful people in the Temple and raise children of their own.

Moi | 8:26 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

I have read many of your comments with interest. Maybe the victims would have better success if they approached their bishop and requested help. Though I am aware of LDS members who have been abused and their needs ignored by their leaders, that is individual to that leader. I was fortunate to have a Bishop, who when I told him a bishop and my father had raped me in my youth, paid for counseling at LDS social services for a number of years. Certainly I wish they would take a more aggressive stance towards abusers, but I think it needs to be acknowledged that many church leaders offer help to those who have been abused when they become aware of the problem.

active lds | 8:31 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

almost twenty years ago we had a General Authority visiting for Stake conference. They held a special early morning meeting for all primary presidencies in the Stake. There we were counseled about how to spot abuse and what situations should not be allowed to happen such as a male teacher taking a child to the bathroom. They were concerned then and are just as concerned now. Hmmmm,, seems to me there is a scripture that say if anyone offends a child it would be better if a millstone were hung around his neck. That scripture has been around for a very long time. For people to say the Church doesn't care isn't true. Individual members may screw up royally whether as a perpetrator or an enabler, but they don't represent the Church at large.

active lds | 8:46 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

hey robo,why don't you check with the LDS legal dept. and see what they say about a Bishop protecting a known abuser? Confidentiality does not apply in cases of abuse. I am aware of a case where a young woman told her Bishop about a murder her father had committed. After consulting with Church attorneys it was decided he needed to make this information known to the proper authorities and the murderer was brought to justice. Yaaaaaay for good men who make this world a better place by seeing that people who are a danger to society, whether a pedophile or murderer are dealt with by the legal system.

The Caravan | 12:22 a.m. Oct. 6, 2007

I am a 42 yr old active High Priest (to those that are not LDS, yes, that means I am LDS) living outside of Utah and have been for 16+ years while serving in the USAF. To my fellow LDS brothers and sisters: pls try to be patient with our brothers and sisters who presently hate the Church and what we stand for (hard though that is at times). The lawyer "representing" those alledgedly abused is obviously only seeking earthly glory and money. His comment of any sexual abuse within the Church being on the same scale of the sinful abuse written about by Catholic priests is nonsense. 1st, we're not as large as the Catholic church [yet.. : - ) ] so how could that be true? 2nd, and most importantly, you know it's not true because you know the general quality of people in the Church and "what makes them tick". "Perfect", all of us Mormons? No, that's why we're here. But even if the Church's good name is dragged thru the mud some (likely) and pays large sums of money (not likely), rest assured the caravan WILL move on, ALWAYS! Dan Maloy Enid, OK

problem solved | 12:47 a.m. Oct. 6, 2007

We had a very dangerous situation in the classroom we used as a nursery. We repeatedly brought this to the attention of the local leaders. One man even told me he didn't care, it wasn't a problem as far as he was concerned. I got tired of the run around and was very concerned for the safety of the toddlers. All it took was one phone call to Church headquarters in SLC and bingo no more problem. The Bishop received a phone call that very day telling him he needed to fix the problem immediately. If the local leaders won't listen, just keep telling someone until you are believed. We teach our children to do the same thing. SLC cares deeply as do most local leaders about the safety and welfare of all their members regardless of their age or situation.

bookaholic | 1:56 a.m. Oct. 6, 2007

I want to be certain that no one mistakes my meaning when I spoke about the long time sexual abuse committed by some Catholic priests.

First of all, I am certain that the abuse was done by a small percentage of men, that most priests were wonderful, dedicated Christians. I'm sure that the vast majority of all Catholics were unaware of the abuse, and would have been appalled and outraged by it had they known.

The fact of the matter is that for many years it was not known that abusers were almost impossible to change or cure. I'm sure when caught, the abusers were (or portrayed themselves to be`) deeply repentant. So, often they were allowed to go into counselling, be deemed "cured", and were moved to another locale where they could get a fresh start. At that point, they usually began again abusing other youth.

Over time we have come to know that almost none of these abusers can reform themselves. I don't know anyone who blames average Catholics. Even those in charge probably didn't realize what they were unleasing on an unsuspecting parish. Now, we know and, hopefully, we can all do better at protecting our children.

Educated? Literate? | 8:24 a.m. Oct. 6, 2007

To "Educated Literate" - you must change your name to UN educated IL-literate. You said, "Scoutmasters do not have any ecumenical authority..." Huh? Do you know what the word ecumenical means? I think you meant ecclesiastical authority. And in that regard you are wrong. Scoutmasters in the LDS Church must be CALLED, and to receive a calling IS an ecclesiastical position with ecclesiastical authority! Why try to minimize a serious problem in the LDS Church? (and why do it so poorly)?

Not so easy | 8:35 a.m. Oct. 6, 2007

to problem solved,

Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it works for everyone. We had a similar situation, and notified SLC. They just pushed it back down to the local leaders who then just got angry because we had "tattled" on them to SLC. I was actually called in and reprimanded for "going over their heads!" The authority structure in the Church is the problem.

GH | 8:48 a.m. Oct. 6, 2007

What if the bishop is the abuser?!

Rock | 8:51 a.m. Oct. 6, 2007

No, problem solved, SLC does not care about real people... all they care about are the numbers. That is why abuse is allowed to happen. They just want to manage appearances in the public media. And that is why these legal actions must be taken.

Kudos | 9:23 a.m. Oct. 6, 2007

To Bookaholic,

Yours is the most enlightened comment yet. Abuse in any religious organization is something about which we are learning and becoming better. The puzzling thing is why it can go on so long when some religious leaders claim to have access to some superior form of supernatural knowledge (i.e., "revelation")? Such presumed foreknowledge should prevent these problems in the first place!

bookaholic | 12:24 p.m. Oct. 6, 2007

Members of local LDS leadership councils are human like everyone else. Some are wiser and more spiritual than others. If some have made errors in dealing with abuse, it is deeply lamentable.

If they have done evil, they will answer for it to God. If they have shown extremely poor judgment, they will answer for that.

However much we desire that these situations be handled correctly each and every time, it is true that humans are FALLIBLE. Some people have made mistakes that have hurt some of you terribly, and for that I and all good members of the Church apologize and sorrow with you.

I do think that society in general has become much more aware of these types of problems of abuse and are dealing with them in more appropriate and aggressive ways.

Please don't blame God or the Church in general because some individual screwed up. We are strongly opposed to abuse of any type, and any experience that you had contrary to what we teach and are taught was an abomination and an anomaly.

Anonymous | 2:12 p.m. Oct. 6, 2007

to bookaholic,
Yes, LDS leaders are fallible, including the very top leaders! You cannot draw a line in the Church hierarchy to distinguish the fallible from the infallible leaders. Those at the very top must take responsibility for "calling" the fallible, sinful ones who perpetrate these crimes.

problem solved | 6:14 p.m. Oct. 6, 2007

I am aware of a woman in my Stake who called SLC because she didn't like the watering schedule used at the meetinghouse. She was turned back to the local authorities. Most concerns can and should be handled by those closest to the situation, but if that doesn't work, then SLC will intervene. My son had a serious problem with his mission president. This man actually said some inappropriate things to me during a conference call with our Stake president. The missionary dept was notified of this man's behavior, my son was transferred to a different mission and I was reassured that this president would not be allowed to continue if he didn't get his act together. That was good enough for me. My son's new mission president was a wonderful, very good man and I'm grateful my son had a good experience with him. No one will convince me that SLC does not care, it just expects most situations to be handled by adults. Just like parents who let their children work out their own problems most of the time, they don't intervene unless necessary.

Anon-a-mouse | 9:13 p.m. Oct. 6, 2007

bookaholic, take off your rose-colored glasses and it will dawn on you that your experience is not the sine qua non of experience for all the Church. The leaders make mistakes, regardless of how much they "care". Good intentions do not make things all wonderful, especially when these 'good intentioned' leaders are supposed to have revelatory powers that should give them advanced knowledge of how to prevent these problems before any of them happen! Were's he magic from these "prophets, seers, and revelators"??

Rationality | 8:55 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I'm amazed.

Several people have reported in this forum that they witnessed crimes that occurred during sacrament meeting.

I don't know about you, but when I see a crime, I call the cops, not my bishop. In fact, there is a moral duty to notify the authorities if a crime has been committed.

Don't expect your bishop to be a police officer. In most cases, he's not trained to investigate crimes. If he is trained, it's probably a conflict of interest for him to investigate a crime which involves his own congregation. Act like a responsible adult. If you see a crime, report it.

Sub-Odeon | 1:38 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Sexual child abuse is right up there with murder, in terms of terrible crimes. I am sorry for these men, if they suffered sexual abuse at the hands of any Boy Scout official, or anyone in the LDS faith for that matter.

Having said this, I think this lawsuit is 90% financially driven; with a side helping of media showmanship on the part of the lawyer.

The key difference between the LDS church and the Catholic church, where sexual abuse is concerned, is that the LDS church does not employ its Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc, etc. No church leader at a local or regional level is paid for his or her work. There is nothing legally binding about a church calling. Therefore it will be difficult for any lawyer to argue that the church had a legal responsibility to "control" an abusive member.

The LDS church has no such control. They can strip a person of their membership in the church, that's about it. Everything else is up to the local cops. If these grown men want justice, they should pursue the matter through the police on an individual basis.

Ramona | 2:54 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

The church doesn't employ Bishops, Stake Presidents, or Scout leaders but it does "call" them. Where was the divine intervention? The legal responsibility to "control" an abusive member comes when you pretend that God is "calling" that person with the logical conclusion that God wouldn't call a pedophile to a calling in which children would be exposed to such a person. It is because of that, the church is responsible.

Jerry | 3:05 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

A central question is whether or not boy scouts are safe now? Are they?

Jerry | 3:31 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Consider these factors: 1. Many predators have sufficient intelligence and motivation to copy the appearance, demeanor, vocabulary, and other positive attributes of active church members. 2. Many predators are highly motivated to network with each other for mutual emotional support and comaradrie. 3. Most of the safeguards set up to protect boys are based on the assumption that predators are loners who can be detected in one-on-one interviews. Can they? 4. Many predators know well how to build relationships of trust with young boys -- relationships that may include important secrets.

Given these obvious realities, how safe are the boys?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.