Redux: IHAQ’s post titled “LDS Scout Leader charged with several counts of criminal sexual conduct.”

[Marcus]

I am requesting upfront, as the OP, that this thread stay on topic.

A former Boys Scouts of America and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints leader was arraigned Monday in 39th District Court in Macomb County and charged with several counts of criminal sexual conduct.

Mark Chapman, 51, was extradited from New York to face the charges, the Michigan attorney general's office said in a release.

He is facing two counts of first-degree, criminal sexual conduct and eight counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct stemming from the alleged abuse of two victims. Chapman is the first person to be charged as a result of an ongoing Boy Scouts of America investigation, according to Dana Nessel's office.

One of the alleged victims was a family member who was about 11 years old when the abuse, which continued for years, first began, the AG said in announcing the charges earlier this month.

The other victim was allegedly abused by Chapman between the ages of 13-17 at his father's house, Chapman's house and a local church, the AG said.

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/news/form ... nal-sexual

The Church needs to acknowledge and embrace that it has a problem as big (if not bigger) as the Catholic Church has been facing with sexual predators gaining positions of trust and responsibility. The Church still doesn’t run background checks before appointing people to leadership positions with responsibility for minors.

A meaningful response to this post came from Chap:

Looking at the central topic of this thread, and at least one of its branch topics, I'd say:

I am VERY glad that I was not brought up in a religion that teaches that masturbation by young people going through adolescence (or indeed anybody else) is bad.

I am VERY glad that I was not brought up in a religion that would have led to me as a teenager being on my own in a room with a person I was taught to regard as having authority over me, who asked me probing questions about whether I masturbated or not, and if so when and how and how often, all the time reminding me that the deity I was taught to believe in disapproved of such activity and was watching me all the time.

I simply CANNOT IMAGINE the mindset of any parent who would allow their son or their daughter to be subject to that kind of encounter. But that of course simply shows my lamentable lack of cultural sympathy for other people's sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn't it? I feel the same way about female genital mutilation, child marriage, and so on. What a disgusting piece of work I am!

Chap is NOT a disgusting piece of work, IMNSHO.

Another post from the original OP that furthers the topic:
[

Background checks are great, but I can't recall ever reading about abuse in the Church that would have been stopped by a background check.

Perhaps that’s because Kirton McConkie are really proficient at damage limitation.

They can only catch people that have been caught and convicted before, and most of these guys haven't been caught and convicted before.

Background checks, when done properly, do more than simply check for a criminal history. They can show other red flags that should make a person pause before allowing them unfettered access to minors who are groomed to believe they can always trust a “called” adult male. In fact, unfettered access to minors or vulnerable adults by lone adult males should never ever be allowed under any circumstances. Putting that policy in place would also help. Yet still Bishops are allowed to ask minors intimate questions in a private 1 on 1 setting, despite numerous incidents of abusive and manipulative Bishops (and they’re the ones Kirton McConkie haven’t successfully kept out of the public eye).

Would you send your child to a school that had the same safeguarding policies and track record as the Church? Your answer should be no, and for good reason.

[Marcus]

More from the original discussion of grooming

Yes, I do. That's why I'm not worried about Bishop's interviews.

How are you defining "grooming"?

Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.

Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked.

Anybody can be a groomer, no matter their age, gender or race. Grooming can take place over a short or long period of time – from weeks to years. Groomers may also build a relationship with the young person's family or friends to make them seem trustworthy or authoritative.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child- ... /grooming/

Children and young people can be groomed online, in person or both – by a stranger or someone they know. This could be a family member, a friend or someone who has targeted them – like a teacher, faith group leader or sports coach.

A well intentioned Bishop can also inadvertently groom a minor or vulnerable adult making them more susceptible to abusers in other situations by making them accustomed to inappropriate questions from adults. The church instructs Bishops to build up 1-2-1 personal relationships with youth, which is exactly what groomers want licence to do.

[Marcus]

More details:

Bishops and other LDS leaders don’t contact local authorities (to what degree I don’t know) when they are made aware of sexual abuse. But it’s not always against the law to fail to report such a crime, the way it might be for a school official or human resources manager.

In Utah, for example, there is an exemption for religious leaders to report abuse or neglect. The law currently reads:

When any individual, including an individual licensed under Title 58, Chapter 31b, Nurse Practice Act, or Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act, has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect, or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, that individual shall immediately report the alleged abuse or neglect to the nearest peace officer, law enforcement agency, or office of the division.

… the notification requirement described in Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to a member of the clergy, with regard to any confession made to the member of the clergy while functioning in the ministerial capacity of the member of the clergy and without the consent of the individual making the confession…

House Bill 90, which would eliminate the exemption for religious leaders, was struck down at the Utah state Capitol in March of 2020.

https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/HB0090.html

(Rep. Romero is awesome, by the way) - https://house.utleg.gov/rep/ROMERAY/

Anyway, what’s even more disturbing, while the Mormon Church maintains a 24-hour hotline for leadership to report abuse and learn their local laws around contacting authorities, the Cult has been accused of using the hotline to silence victims instead. Why? Forgiveness Cult-ure. Victims are actively encouraged to forgive their abusers, which of course allows them to find new victims. It’s BS.

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

BLUF & tl;dr - Pastor has access to 14-year-old girl, family allowed him to pick her up whenever, he raped her repeatedly “allegedly”

Here’s the article I just read article from ksl.com:

https://www.ksl.com/article/50396482/ra ... urt-ruling

And its ‘parent article detailing the charges here:

https://www.ksl.com/article/46732208/sa ... ngregation

A Salt Lake City pastor has been accused of raping a girl in his congregation for several years.

…

Between late 2014 and July 2017, the victim told police “she was systematically raped by and forced to perform other sexual acts upon Isidor Archibeque,” according to a search warrant affidavit.

The abuse began when the girl was 14, according to charging documents. Archibeque is accused of forcing the girl to have sex with him “several times a month without her consent.”

On one occasion, he threatened to hurt the girl’s family if she told anyone what had happened, according to charging documents. In another incident, Archibeque strangled the girl as he raped her, and on another occasion “punched her in the chest” before sexually assaulting her, the charges state.

The girl’s family “confirmed that there were many incidents where Archibeque had access to (her) by picking her up at school and through church activities.”

—————

I agree background checks are a good screening tool, but I wonder how kids who are conditioned to trust and accept the grooming of ‘godly men’ can better recognize what’s happening and protect themselves without help from the institution itself and the families within? If you scale down from a large organization like the Mormon cult to a small independent church like the one linked above, which I believe is a small hispanic evangelical church, and families allow their children unfettered access to a pastor, there’s no way to stop it.

Perhaps the only way to ensure any sort of screening is if the government steps in and regulations are put into place; the government can finally tax churches and create a Department of Trying to Get Religious Leaders to Stop Fondling Children, but It Probably Won’t Anyway.

- Doc

[IHAQ]

Thank you for doing this thread Marcus, I really appreciate the effort. Sadly I fear that doubtingthomas and Res Ipsa (a board admin) derailed it sufficiently to kill all interest in the original topic of the thread.

On the original thread, malkie made what I consider to be an excellent summation of the problem.

A point that has been made over and over in this discussion is that the continual - and possibly progressive - placing of a vulnerable person in a situation in which an untrained and not properly vetted authority figure asks them, one-on-one, about intimate matters is problematic for at least three reasons

1. It makes it possible, and progressively easier, for the authority figure to take advantage of the person.
2. It desensitizes the person to inappropriate advances, and makes it easier for someone else to take advantage of them.
3. It makes it possible for the authority figure to be unjustly accused of trying to take advantage of the person.

I agree with you that most Bishops are not trying to harm anyone. I don't think that anyone in this discussion has suggested that they are. But this process facilitates the harm for the few who are intent on harm.

What I do not understand is why, when there is known to be potential for harm, and when there are alternatives, does the church still want Bishops to conduct one-on-one closed-door interviews.

[Jersey Girl]

Hey Folks! I didn't know where to put this so chose the first related search result I got. Link is to a trailer on a new documentary streaming this month on Hulu.

‘Leave No Trace’ | A Hidden History of the Boy Scouts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6v_Brad Wilcox-18cw

I find the title of the documentary particularly sickening since I spent years engaged in LNT camping and teaching it though in this case, the perversion of the concept fits the perversion addressed in the doc and that is what is most sickening of all.

Anyway, no idea if this will cover anything regarding LDS scouts and yet, here it is for you.

Jersey

[Dr Moore]

The entire #ChurchToo phenomenon is sickening beyond words. It isn’t just Catholics and Mormons, but widespread abuse behind the shelter of “church” with all of its accompanying benefits to perpetrators. Such as, purity culture, men “called of God,” sanctified trust, and fear mongering.

Thank God we live in a time in which technology and community combine to expose these disgusting abuses.

[drumdude]

I think the culture has changed a lot. When I was still helping with the young men's leaders and primary teachers, they were very good at ensuring children were never left alone with a single man. And doors were always kept open.

Of course the Bishoprick was excluded from this, which Sam Young rightfully protested against.