Scott Lloyd Defends Sexual Abuse

[_Moniker]

This was an odd statement!

And that it has always been the proper role of churches to publicly expose wrongdoers, right? I suppose he thinks we should make pedophiles wear a big red "P," the new scarlet letter, does he?

What role does the LDS Church play in issues of sexuality of the members? Does the LDS Church get involved with masturbation, homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, titillating clothing of females? Isn't QUITE a big deal made about it? Excommunication? Confession? Not able to take communion... and I know not what else. So, is he saying the Church hasn't taken the role of sex police? I'd rather the Church deal with pedophiles than consenting adults and singles that deal with sexual urges in private.

[_asbestosman]

So, is he saying the Church hasn't taken the role of sex police? I'd rather the Church deal with pedophiles than consenting adults and singles that deal with sexual urges in private.

No, he's saying that the church does not publish the details of church courts. It does not tell the membership WHY someone was excommunicated or denied the communion. They don't make boys wear a big P for smoking pot so everyone knows what happened.

Pedaphiles are a bit different. We need to protect our children from them. Is a sex offender registry the best way? Is mandatory reporting from ecclesiastical leaders the right thing? Maybe, maybe not. It comes with other costs too. For example, some offenders have been zoned out of so many places that they live under bridges and basically are harder to track. Is this really a good thing? It'd be nice if there were an eash answer (maybe life-imprsonment).

[_asbestosman]

I do not like the idea of boys being interviewed either but what this practice teaches girls is just sick.

Why does it teach boys something less-sick than what it teaches girls?

[_karl61]

Confessions could be done like how people communicate in certain jails. You are in a small booth with a chair and just pick up the phone, but there is bullet proof glass in between just in case any thoughts should arise in the mind of the leader. A friend of mine, who moved away from out ward, told me his Stake President told him that he gets crazy thoughts when interviewing seventeen year old girls. He says these thoughts are just normal.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Asbestosman,

I do not like the idea of boys being interviewed either but what this practice teaches girls is just sick.

Why does it teach boys something less-sick than what it teaches girls?

To be clear, I do not like the idea of men interviewing children alone about sexual matters, under any circumstances.

However, I do think men interviewing boys is less problematic than men interviewing girls, and I would think women interviewing girls is less problematic than women interviewing boys.

In this world in which we reside, the idea that girls must submit to an interview alone with a grown man and discuss sexual topics and her personal sexuality sends a REALLY dangerous message in my opinion.

REGARDLESS, I do NOT like the "interview" idea at all and find it completely wrong.

~dancer~

[_Mister Scratch]

This was an odd statement!

And that it has always been the proper role of churches to publicly expose wrongdoers, right? I suppose he thinks we should make pedophiles wear a big red "P," the new scarlet letter, does he?

What role does the LDS Church play in issues of sexuality of the members? Does the LDS Church get involved with masturbation, homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, titillating clothing of females? Isn't QUITE a big deal made about it? Excommunication? Confession? Not able to take communion... and I know not what else. So, is he saying the Church hasn't taken the role of sex police? I'd rather the Church deal with pedophiles than consenting adults and singles that deal with sexual urges in private.

Pahoran's statement is a red herring. Really, what Pah is arguing is that the Church should not be attacked/sued for any reason whatsoever, no matter how strong the case, or how heinous the act. If, say, an SP were responsible for sexually assaulting a girl in his stake, then I'm pretty sure that Pahoran would be opposed to anything happening to this SP if it meant the Church would also be involved. That's the bottom line here, as far as S. Lloyd and Rusty McG. are concerned: they are willing to give a free pass to sexual misconduct if it will save the LDS Church from a lawsuit. That, in a nutshell, is what I found so appalling about the thread.

I mean, we could rephrase the question in a different way, e.g., "Should the LDS Church be held responsible for putting in place and encouraging certain scenarios where abuse is more likely to occur?" There can be no doubt that Pahoran and Co. would say, "No." In the minds of hardcore Mopologists, the institutional Church is never responsible for anything.

[_asbestosman]

To be clear, I do not like the idea of men interviewing children alone about sexual matters, under any circumstances.

However, I do think men interviewing boys is less problematic than men interviewing girls, and I would think women interviewing girls is less problematic than women interviewing boys.

I don't think women interviewing boys is somehow more problematic than men interviewing boys. If the stats I hear are true, the man is more likely to be a pedaphile even though it's not unknown among women.


How do you propose the church be allowed to assess worthiness, give a chance for confession, and yet avoid inappropriate circumstances? Would it be ok if a parent were present or if the parent conducted the interview and then discussed it with the bishop?

Again, if I were called as a bishop, I would refuse to interview children alone because of liability issues and I don't know why anyone dares.

[_Mister Scratch]

Confessions could be done like how people communicate in certain jails. You are in a small booth with a chair and just pick up the phone, but there is bullet proof glass in between just in case any thoughts should arise in the mind of the leader.

But what would that solve? I mean, haven't you seen Midnight Express?

[_asbestosman]

I mean, we could rephrase the question in a different way, e.g., "Should the LDS Church be held responsible for putting in place and encouraging certain scenarios where abuse is more likely to occur?" There can be no doubt that Pahoran and Co. would say, "No." In the minds of hardcore Mopologists, the institutional Church is never responsible for anything.

Besides bishop interviews, which scenarios does the church encourage which ever leaves a kid alone with an adult? Which scenarios where abuse occurs are ones that the church encourages? The only one I can think of is primary teachers and that is being rectified (and a sad situation it was--glad things are changing). But I don't think the church reasonably knew at the time that the primary teacher situation needed fixing.

[_truth dancer]

I don't think women interviewing boys is somehow more problematic than men interviewing boys. If the stats I hear are true, the man is more likely to be a pedaphile even though it's not unknown among women.

I didn't mean to imply I was addressing issues of pedophilia, I meant in terms of comfortableness and appropriateness. But again, I do not think any scenario is appropriate.

How do you propose the church be allowed to assess worthiness, give a chance for confession, and yet avoid inappropriate circumstances? Would it be ok if a parent were present or if the parent conducted the interview and then discussed it with the bishop?

I'm not a good one to ask because I do not get the "worthiness" stuff, nor do I think confessions as it is played out in the LDS church is a good idea.

If I were a consultant to the church however, I would first come up with clear and healthy guidelines and find a way to work within them.

Again, if I were called as a bishop, I would refuse to interview children alone because of liability issues and I don't know why anyone dares.

Good for you!

~dancer~