Sexual Abuse, For the SCMC and LDS Believers

[_Yoda]

After this latest nightmarish exercise in leftist moral hysterics that makes every adult male, every father, every Bishop, every scoutmaster, and every Church leader a potential child abuser, and brands every adult male in the nation as a potential risk the moment they are out of sight or alone with a child, I think I'll begin to take my own advice much more seriously.

The final Oprahfication of the world has begun as TD attempts to resurrect the long discredited child sexual abuse hysteria of the mid-eighties to mid-nineties in the interest of stigmatizing male LDS church leaders and driving a wedge of distrust and suspicion between male adult role models in Priesthood leadership positions - all of them, simply because of the the fact that they are male adults - and the children of members.

Droopy, you are truly a legend in your own mind.

Where has ANYONE here said that EVERY adult male, bishop, etc. is guilty of child abuse? No one has said that. You are conveniently making sweeping generalizations to make your point. Frankly, your claiming that all posters here are clamoring together as part of some leftist conspiracy is as tiresome as Scratch's previous feuds with DCP.

What I do find interesting, though, is that the Church is VERY careful about "appearance of evil" when it comes to the following situations:

Missionaries are not allowed to be fed by a single LDS woman, or in a household where the husband is not present.

Members of the opposite sex not married to each other are not to be alone in the same room or alone in a car together.

Recently, the Church HAS actually changed its policy regarding primary workers. Now, primary classes must be team-taught, preferably in a husband-wife situation, and classroom doors are to remain open.

The inconsistency between these actions and a bishop asking youth questions of a sexual nature behind closed doors should be apparent.

[_Jersey Girl]

Back on this again, Loran. Besides the fact that you chose to inflate the nature of the topic here, let me respond in another way...

After this latest nightmarish exercise in leftist moral hysterics that makes every adult male, every father, every Bishop, every scoutmaster, and every Church leader a potential child abuser, and brands every adult male in the nation as a potential risk the moment they are out of sight or alone with a child, I think I'll begin to take my own advice much more seriously.

They ARE.

The teacher, the scout leader, the bishop, the teacher assistant, the next door neighbor, the relative, are ALL potential child abusers and not just males, Loran.

Read the current news reports about the Sandra Cantu case whose body was found stuffed inside of a suitcase, discarded in a body of water, and washed up on shore when the reservoir was drained. Her female neighbor, who was a Sunday School teacher has been arrested for her death and sexual assault, rape with a foreign object. She is suspected of killing the child INSIDE the church, Loran.

This isn't just about males as potential abusers. It's about any adult who is in a position of trust and authority and who has lone access to a child.

Would you suggest removing seat belts from cars? The child restraint laws that are in force?

If not, why wouldn't you agree that proposing and implementing safe guards as a deterrent to child abuse and false allegations against adults who interact with them one:one is a common sense approach to take?

[_Ray A]

Way to go: Mormon family's sex secrets.

A Brisbane teenager was quoted religious scripture and banned from taking the sacrament as punishment for molesting a female relative after the girl's parents decided against reporting the offence to police, a court has been told.

The family instead left it to a church bishop to discipline the boy, but the strategy failed and the teenager went on to commit multiple sex offences against young girls over a 15-year period, ending with the stalking of his wife's 16 year-old sister last year.

Now aged 29, the man admitted at Brisbane's District Court yesterday to spying on his sister-in-law on eight separate occasions while she used the bathroom.

He also pleaded guilty to seven counts of indecent dealing with children under 12 and 16, stemming from the molestation of his younger sister and two female cousins between 1991 and 2006.

The court heard the man, who cannot be named, had been just 13 when he began sexually abusing the girls, the youngest of them aged 11.

The abuse continued for years, with one of the attacks occurring in the back of the family car while the man's mother and father were present.

When one of the girls complained, her father was persuaded to allow her attacker to be counselled by the church bishop for six months, instead of going to the police.

"The bishop quoted scriptures to him and the discipline was that he was not to take the sacraments for a period of time," Defence counsel Tim Ryan said.

"It didn't have the desired effect."

Mr Ryan told the court of his client's "dysfunctional" upbringing in a Mormon household of eight children "where there were completely inappropriate [sexual] behaviours."

Mr Ryan said the man and his brother had been sent out to trawl through recycling bins in search of pornographic magazines for their father, who would discuss his sexual exploits at the dinner table and play "inappropriate" movies while the children were present.

The man's father was convicted in 2004 of sexually abusing his daughter and two other young girls.

Although the prosecution yesterday argued for a two year jail term for the man, Judge Robert Pack was asked to take into account the impact of his father's behaviour on shaping his own "abnormal" sexual conduct.

The judge sentenced him to serve four months behind bars, with a probationary period of three years.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here, Loran, read this and then get away from me with your useless rhetoric.

Crying Calif mom arraigned on murder, rape charges

Terry Collins, Associated Press Writer – Tue Apr 14, 7:05 pm ET

STOCKTON, Calif. – A woman kidnapped, raped and murdered an 8-year-old girl and stuffed her body in a suitcase that was dumped in a pond just a few miles from home, prosecutors alleged Tuesday. Melissa Huckaby, 28, was charged with murdering her daughter's playmate, Sandra Cantu, in a gruesome crime that has shocked and terrified residents of Tracy, a Northern California city of about 78,000, 60 miles east of San Francisco.

Huckaby, who volunteered as a Sunday school teacher at her grandfather's Clover Road Baptist Church in Tracy, appeared in a San Joaquin County courtroom for her arraignment in a red jumpsuit and shackles. She trembled and cried as a judge read the charge: one count of murder with the special circumstances of rape with a foreign object, lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under 14 and murder in the course of a kidnapping.

The special circumstances mean Huckaby, if convicted, could face the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole. District Attorney James Willett said Tuesday he has not decided whether to seek the death penalty.

During Tuesday's hearing, which lasted several minutes, public defender Ellen Schwarzenberg asked Judge Richard A. Vlavianos for a gag order in the case. Vlavianos said that question would be answered by his colleague, Judge Terrence Van Oss, who would be presiding over future hearings.

Vlavianos ordered Huckaby to return to court April 24, when she's expected to enter a plea.

Family members of the defendant and victim filed quietly into and out of the courtroom Tuesday, declining to speak with reporters. Many cried softly during the hearing and became especially emotional when the rape allegation was read.

Sandra disappeared March 27, last seen on surveillance camera video skipping outside the Orchard Estates Mobile Home Park where she lived just five doors from Huckaby.

A 10-day search by law enforcement and the community ended April 6, when farmworkers draining an irrigation pond a few miles away from the mobile home complex found the suitcase containing Sandra's body.

Police have said Sandra was found wearing the same clothes she had on when she was last seen: a pink "Hello Kitty" T-shirt and black leggings.

They have not said how, why or where she was killed, and the coroner's office has said autopsy results are pending.

A criminal complaint said the murder occurred "on or about" March 27 but gave no other details.

Huckaby was arrested Friday, hours after she told a Tracy Press reporter that the suitcase was hers but it had been stolen the day Sandra went missing.

In the days after Sandra's body was found, police searched Clover Road Baptist Church, interviewed Huckaby's grandfather, Pastor Clifford Lawless, and took items from the family's home. Huckaby lived with her grandparents.

She grew up in Southern California and bounced back and forth between Tracy and Orange County after high school, said her family, who described her as a loving mother with a strong religious background.

Relatives visited Huckaby late Monday at the San Joaquin County Jail, where she was being held without bail.

"We're in shock," said Brian Lawless, Huckaby's father. "The young lady I see on film, that's not my daughter," he said, referring to images of her broadcast on television.

Lawless said the family cried and prayed together during the visit.

The little girl's family broke down in tears when they were told of the sexual assault allegations.

"I'm in shock. The whole thing is unimaginable," Sandra's aunt, Angie Chavez, said Monday.

The slaying had already aroused fear among parents in Tracy and particularly in the mobile home complex.

Josie Orozco, who lives in the complex and attends the same church as Sandra's family, emerged from the courtroom crying after the arraignment. She said that while Huckaby may have appeared remorseful during the hearing, she didn't believe the emotion was genuine.

"She knew what she was doing. She could have asked for help. She could have gone to a doctor if she was sick this way," Orozco said.

___

Associated Press writers Marcus Wohlsen and Evelyn Nieves contributed to this report.

Further updates say that she is suspected of raping and killing the child in a crawl space under the church.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Loren,

Yet again, I understand just why I left this god forsaken intellectual and moral toilet and said I'll never come back.

How many times have you said this Loren? It is your mantra.

After this latest nightmarish exercise in leftist moral hysterics that makes every adult male, every father, every Bishop, every scoutmaster, and every Church leader a potential child abuser, and brands every adult male in the nation as a potential risk the moment they are out of sight or alone with a child, I think I'll begin to take my own advice much more seriously.

Yeah this is exactly what I said.

The final Oprahfication of the world has begun as TD attempts to resurrect the long discredited child sexual abuse hysteria of the mid-eighties to mid-nineties in the interest of stigmatizing male LDS church leaders and driving a wedge of distrust and suspicion between male adult role models in Priesthood leadership positions - all of them, simply because of the the fact that they are male adults - and the children of members.

Loren, do you think it is safe to allow children to play alone at night in an inner city playground?

Most parents would not. Most parents would find it a dangerous situation.

But guess what? Child sexual abuse rarely happens by a stranger finding a child in a park alone at night in the inner city. Nearly all child sexual abuse happens with known trusted adults when they are alone behind closed doors with a child. This isn't some sort of hysteria it is a fact. And yes, the rate of child sexual abuse has seen a significant increase in the last few years.

Not every man (or woman) is a child abuser but some are and we need to protect children from them. We need to create an environment where child sexual abuse cannot happen. We need to teach children what is and is not appropriate. Having a conversation behind closed doors, one on one with an adult is completely inappropriate, discussing sexual issues under these circumstances makes it unconscionable. Again, it is considered "passive acceptance," to create the exact situation where abuse is likely to occur. The LDS church needs to stop it.

I know of no other church who engages in such a practice, in fact every other church of which I know has taken steps to protect children and to help them avoid those situations where they can be harmed. Why has the LDS church not made some changes?

Also Loren, your leaders know that abuse is a serious problem even within the church, even among the "priesthood" so don't bother pretending this isn't an issue.

One last thing, protecting children is not a "liberal" idea, it is a human idea. You may be surprised to know that there are actually Republicans who care about children.

~td~

[_Phouchg]

After this latest nightmarish exercise in leftist moral hysterics...

You may want to fine tune that broad brush you paint everybody with - as any of my friends here will attest, I very often fall on the conservative side of the ledger. But it is easier to see everything as black and white, n'est ce pas?

...simply because of the the fact that they are male adults

So the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is just more male bashing?


Even though I think your "priesthood" leaders have no more or no less authority than the average joe on the street, I think that any adult (male or female) who discusses issues of a sexual matter with a minor child who is not their own child is engaging in sexual abuse. Any parent who countenances this is part of the problem, and by association is facilitating sexual abuse on their child.

On top of that , it is none of the "bishop"'s business. I wonder how many of them get off on these kinds of discussions?


fook

[_harmony]

I think that any adult (male or female) who discusses issues of a sexual matter with a minor child who is not their own child is engaging in sexual abuse.

I don't think so, Fook. While I don't condone the church's set up for bishop's interviews, to broaden that to any adult means no counseling, school, juvenile justice based, or clinical, would ever take place.

I think there are times when a trained adult needs to be able to talk with a child about sexual issues. Strict safeguards have to be in place, but to say No to all counseling of minors around sexual issues is to take us back 100 years.

[_Brackite]

Yet again, I understand just why I left this god forsaken intellectual and moral toilet and said I'll never come back.

After this latest nightmarish exercise in leftist moral hysterics that makes every adult male, every father, every Bishop, every scoutmaster, and every Church leader a potential child abuser, and brands every adult male in the nation as a potential risk the moment they are out of sight or alone with a child, I think I'll begin to take my own advice much more seriously.

The final Oprahfication of the world has begun as TD attempts to resurrect the long discredited child sexual abuse hysteria of the mid-eighties to mid-nineties in the interest of stigmatizing male LDS church leaders and driving a wedge of distrust and suspicion between male adult role models in Priesthood leadership positions - all of them, simply because of the the fact that they are male adults - and the children of members.

Hello Droopy,


Didn't You read what Your fellow LDS Apologist Bishop Bob recently stated? Here is what Bishop Bob recently stated:

Plural marriage is an eternal principle. It is founded on the notion that there will be far fewer men who will accept the atoning sacrifice than women. It has to do, somehow, with the struggle in the Garden of Eden, the choice Eve made, and the promise that she would be saved in childbearing. I don't get it all, but the fact that women are more spiritual and willing to accept the spirit is a fact.

( viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8991&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=210 )


When I was an LDS Missionary, My Companion and I had to have a Third Male Member to come along with us in order for us to either teach, or for us to either eat inside The House of a Single Female.

[_Droopy]

Where has ANYONE here said that EVERY adult male, bishop, etc. is guilty of child abuse? No one has said that.

TDs entire approach to the issue implies that each and every male adult authority figure is a suspect. This the classic feminist position on the white male qua white male: all of them are latent or incipient rapist or child abusers by definition.

You are conveniently making sweeping generalizations to make your point. Frankly, your claiming that all posters here are clamoring together as part of some leftist conspiracy is as tiresome as Scratch's previous feuds with DCP.

Stop smoking the dismembered limbs from your old Barbie dolls Liz and shake out the cobwebs. Where did I ever mention any "leftist conspiracy" The whole child abuse hysteria was and is a project of the cultural Left and drinks deeply of its attitudes and dogmas. I did not create this situation, nor have I claimed a conspiracy.

What I do find interesting, though, is that the Church is VERY careful about "appearance of evil" when it comes to the following situations:

Missionaries are not allowed to be fed by a single LDS woman, or in a household where the husband is not present.

Members of the opposite sex not married to each other are not to be alone in the same room or alone in a car together.

Recently, the Church HAS actually changed its policy regarding primary workers. Now, primary classes must be team-taught, preferably in a husband-wife situation, and classroom doors are to remain open.

The inconsistency between these actions and a bishop asking youth questions of a sexual nature behind closed doors should be apparent.

The above occurs for fear of people like TD, who seek to poison each and every possible well of trust and mentorship between children and adults through the implication of the malignant motivations of, potentially each and every adult male in a child's life (including, as logic must include it, a child's father, which would mean deep legal oversight and regulation of the the conditions under which a father interacts with his own daughter in his own home at all times) and attempt to insert legal liability and fear of litigation and the destruction of one's reputation into every nook and cranny of any relationship between a child and an adult that takes place.

This is done out of legal fear, not for the reasons the child protection Nazis seek to drive wedges between adults and children in their relentless attack upon the symbolic devil incarnate, the white male.

[_Droopy]

They ARE.

The teacher, the scout leader, the bishop, the teacher assistant, the next door neighbor, the relative, are ALL potential child abusers and not just males, Loran.

1. In which case, so are you, and so am I.

2. There is no empirical or rational way that anything approaching all American males could be potential child abusers, given the vanishingly small percentage of males who actually have ever been, or ever will be, child abusers.

Read the current news reports about the Sandra Cantu case whose body was found stuffed inside of a suitcase, discarded in a body of water, and washed up on shore when the reservoir was drained. Her female neighbor, who was a Sunday School teacher has been arrested for her death and sexual assault, rape with a foreign object. She is suspected of killing the child INSIDE the church, Loran.

This has no relevance to TDs position, which is that the typical Bishop cannot be trusted behind closed doors, even with other adults in the room, with an minor child.

This isn't just about males as potential abusers. It's about any adult who is in a position of trust and authority and who has lone access to a child.

The fact of the matter is, that while child sexual abuse has increased somewhat over the last several decades, it has never been an "epidemic", nor is it in any way so common as to warrant a continual climate of fear and suspicion regarding each and every adult male in a child's life.

I think that the real agenda behind this mentality is probably even uglier than the overt agenda itself.

Would you suggest removing seat belts from cars? The child restraint laws that are in force?

Logically irrelevant. Car accidents are...accidents (I do support removal of seat belt laws for adults, however).

If not, why wouldn't you agree that proposing and implementing safe guards as a deterrent to child abuse and false allegations against adults who interact with them one:one is a common sense approach to take?

If you want to deter child abuse, then you punish child abusers severely for their crimes (which our liberal/libertine society is not wont to do), you do not cast a pall of suspicion upon every male role model or authority figure in a child's life as a potential criminal pervert.

You do not send them to 12 step programs or rehabs. You punish them. You create a deterrent.