Scott Lloyd Defends Sexual Abuse

[_Imwashingmypirate]

And there is nothing wrong with going after the Church as an institution.

Actually, I can see why it might be wrong to go after the church as an institution. The abuser made the decision to be abusive. I agree that the church would have some role in it via their teachings and ways. However the church as a whole cannot really be blamed.

can you devise a set of polices and procedures that would absolutely prevent any and all cases of child sexual abuse in any setting that might, however loosely, be connected with the Church?

Erm, that's a bit insensitive. How about morals and ethics? Is this person deliberately justifying abuse? If he had a sexually abused daughter he wouldn't be saying that. (Unless he is as insensitive as his writing).

We're talking about tithing funds here

Is he suggesting that tithing funds are more important than a childs right to an abuse free life???

"The MMM victims were better off,"

I only just got that. To me that seems an evil way to view the world. How can victims be better off? I am pretty sure they could have lived a much better life having not been massacred.

McDonald's sold a cup of coffee that was outrageously hot (and they knew it was too hot, as shown by their own records).

As in the franchise? They sell their drinks too hot all the time. I burn my mouth on every McDonalds hot chocolate I drink.

[quote"Scratch/scott"]But the fact still remains, the jury awarded her the $2.7 million in the first place. The point being that juries, taking pity on a hapless defendant, are apt to go overboard in an effort to punish faceless "institutions" -- like corporations. And large churches. [/quote]

What does McDonalds have to do with church?

Thanks for filling in the details.

But the fact still remains, the jury awarded her the $2.7 million in the first place. The point being that juries, taking pity on a hapless defendant, are apt to go overboard in an effort to punish faceless "institutions" -- like corporations. And large churches.

Moreover, the late political campaign of Mitt Romney has shown us that a significant portion of the populace doesn't have a great deal of affinity for the Church to begin with.

Right. Lawsuits against the Church over sexual abuse should be put on the back burner due to "anti-Mormonism." I bet the dog turd that Scott Lloyd stepped in last week was put there by antis as well? And the hair he found in his soup? Gee, I bet the bad weather he had last week was the doing of the anti-Mormons too!

Sorry Scratch, but I see no reference to anti's in Scotts writing above.

I do believe something should be done to punish the perpetrators and help the victims.

I think that is called justice! I think prevention is always better than the cure. Why do people have to be such pricks sometimes? (I can write that because it is said in the Book of Mormon. Right ;D )

And the Church was not the perpetrator, and the alleged victim has had decades to recover.

Are these supposed to be questions? I was told not to start a sentence with 'And', I can now see why. Is this 'alleged victim a victim of sexual abuse, mental, physical??? I remember when at school people would use the phrase 'sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me'. That was because a lot of name calling happens at primary schools. It must have been reverse psychology. My point is that the names did hurt, infact they hurt more than 'sticks and stones'. So you see, Pahoran would be right if the victim had suffered physical abuse, but then it wouldn't be called abuse if it didn't in some way torture her mind and/or soul, it would just be physical harm or GBH. But abuse is more, it is scarring and continuous physical abuse does scar mentally. Sexual abuse can scar for a lifetime in some cases. Emotional can leave the victim damaged. in fact all types of abuse cause damage. So I am afraid a few decades doesn't quite fit the bill. How very insensitive.

Pahoran's textual bowel movement

What a nice term for crap, may I use that sometime?

I also believe the Church should be held accountable for policy’s that discouraged reporting of abusers.

I agree totally. If the church is controlling peoples lives enough to make people feel the cannot report abuse, or even the bishops don't report abuse that they have discovered through confession, then something is trully wrong. ( I am not saying this is what happens however, but if people are feeling that way and feel if they were not members then I would say church leaders have some explaining to do). I will write of a few things in my ward.

Our Bish has gone now, but he was told of a friend of mine who's dad abused her. She was young at the time, only he knew and he did nothing about it, but somehow it managed to spread around the congregation. About ten years later social work were brought in because of something unconscious. I do not know the exact details but she left church and her sisters told me about it. They sort of confided in me. A more personal experience would be that the bishop once blackmailed me (not in a huge way), if I didn't do something at least once he would do something that I didn't want him to do. ( It's not bad by the way, so don't get bad images, it is just personal that only the bish, Jersey Girl and myself know.) I guess in some ways things could have been a lot different. Why do bishops make out that they must know everything or you will go to hell? and then do nothing about it. Well except a blessing, or make the situation worse.

Despite the fact that those alleged policies have never been proved to actually exist; while actual policies directly addressing the problem have been in place for close to twenty years now. Every possible real remedy has been applied, but the lawsuits, based entirely upon long past history, keep on coming.

Funny, that.

One might call that a contradiction.

Well durgh. If we had no history we would have no lawsuits.

I think I will stop here for this evening. I guess this is kinda a test on myself, I think I have actually stayed on topic. Yay. That is an achievement. Although one might say this last bit is off topic.

My opinion; Sue the balls off the bucker that abused the scouts. And if the dude that caught them in the act didn't talk to the child about it and see what he wanted to do about it and then follow through with reporting it non publicly, then sue his balls off too and compensate the victim and only the victim. If church was involved in covering it up then sue the church also. But not just in terms of money, anyone that wrongs a child ought to get their cummupings. If not by man then the god in which they believe. Or even Karma. The hoorible thing is that even though I feel the abuser should be publically shamed, the child should be kept confidential, because that is one thing that would prevent young people reporting such things. Why pull young innocent victims into the spotlight?


Pirate.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

I believe the big one (and the one referenced in the OP) is scouting. Obviously, scouting is quite a huge deal within the Church, and, stereotypically, scouting is precisely the sort of scenario where these kinds of things can occur. (In fact, If I recall correctly, one of the posters on that MAD thread discussed an incident in which a male adult Church member/leader engaged in some kind of highly inappropriate "wrestling.") There are also various outings and camping trips during which these sorts of things can take place.

[_asbestosman]

I believe the big one (and the one referenced in the OP) is scouting. Obviously, scouting is quite a huge deal within the Church, and, stereotypically, scouting is precisely the sort of scenario where these kinds of things can occur. (In fact, If I recall correctly, one of the posters on that MAD thread discussed an incident in which a male adult Church member/leader engaged in some kind of highly inappropriate "wrestling.") There are also various outings and camping trips during which these sorts of things can take place.

Scouting is interesting, but as I recall the church never encouraged men to be alone with the boys and nowadays it strictly forbids it and requires that two adults be present at all times.

Personally I think the church should drop scouting and instead encourage parents to involve their children in extra-carricular activities without endorsing any particular organizations (but encouraging parents to do their own investigations) so as not to be held liable.