Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, yknot said:

Again, I'm sorry, but this seems like an awful lot of backflip rationalization to support protecting an institution and not a kid. Please, just re-read all that you have written. You have put an awful lot of thought into defending deferred reporting.

Yes, I do tend to put a lot of thought into policies of this nature, trying to consider the viewpoints and needs of all the people and organizations involved because I know that compliance only works when people buy into both the reasons behind a policy and the procedures required to comply with it.  Furthermore, I think avoiding unintended consequences is fairly important with laws and policies involving sensitive issues because it can be significantly harder to fix problems after the fact than it was to establish the law or policy in the first place.  And of course there is the fact that deciding someone else's rights (even if it's a corporation) need to be sacrificed wholesale on the alter of "protecting the children" never sits well with me.

Plus, frankly, when I see someone weighing in on what should be a reasoned and logical discussion with an argument laden with emotional appeal or slanted wording it does tend to make me go the extra mile when countering it.  Take for example your rephrasing of my argument as "defending deferred reporting".  The clear implication of that statement is that I am somehow supporting the idea that there should be a significant time lapse allowed between when someone develops a suspicion of abuse and when they should report it.  And while your statement is technically correct because ANY delay would technically constitute a deferral, your deliberate phrasing is clearly designed to make people think I'm arguing for waiting days or weeks to report a suspicion when I've been pretty clear in saying that all I'm talking about is making a 5-10 minute phone call to a legal department or HR before making a report to the legal apparatus of the state.

Edited by elitts
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This thread started in the bankruptcy thread with a post about the LDS relationship with BSA and a statement that the LDS is more at fault than BSA and should contribute a large amount to the settleme

Just watched the new YPT3.0 training one of our soon to be new committee members did tonite. In the training it states #1 job is to remove the Scout from the situation and make sure they are safe #2 i

That's quite the claim to make after lambasting our faith in this way, don't you think? 🙄

So, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have just a few things I want to address:

1. Please do not refer to our religion as "the Mormon Church." That name was first used as a derogatory term by mobs and persecutors who actively sought to harm and exterminate our people, and though its use has come in and out of vogue (even amongst our own), it is no longer the proper way to address our faith. We are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You may shorted it to "The Church of Christ," or "The Restored Church of Christ," but "Mormon" is not the correct term for us any more. Please address us respectfully. 

2. This is a Scouting forum, is it not? Yet why is it that we so often find threads here that proceed to criticize or pick apart our religion? I don't see this happening with Jewish, Muslim, or Protestant faiths, yet ours has repeatedly been the subject of threads trying to dissect our religious practices, even though we no longer sponsor Scouting and have been well out of it for over a year and a half now. The Church is no longer a part of Scouting; let it go.

3. There are so many false claims about our Church's practices and policies in this thread, especially in @Muttsy 's opening post, that they could lead a lot of people to believe things about our religion that are false if this continues. For those who are not of our religion: there are many misleading claims about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this thread. Read with a discerning eye.

Quote

At some point, criticism of this nature becomes less about bona fide child safety and more about having found a convenient bludgeon to beat up on institutions we are already predisposed to dislike.

Amen to this statement. I see this far too often on these forums, though fortunately, far less here than in other places. I am grateful to both my fellow members of the Church and those who understand our Church's position who have done a far better job than I could explaining and illuminating where we stand.

MODERATORS: I wonder how much of this thread is relevant to the purposes and designs of these forums. This subject matter is, frankly, unrelated to Scouting, especially as our faith no longer partners with the Boy Scouts of America. I suggest that this discussion does not fall within the parameters of this website's intentions, and so, perhaps this is a conversation that ought best be had on some other forum at some other time. And if the thread does remain, please include a disclaimer clarifying that many of the claims made about our religion in this thread are false or misleading, and that this topic is not as much about Scouting as it is about the policies and practices of a particular religion. That would seem fair to me. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

2. This is a Scouting forum, is it not? Yet why is it that we so often find threads here that proceed to criticize or pick apart our religion? I don't see this happening with Jewish, Muslim, or Protestant faiths, yet ours has repeatedly been the subject of threads trying to dissect our religious practices, even though we no longer sponsor Scouting and have been well out of it for over a year and a half now. The Church is no longer a part of Scouting; let it go.

Perhaps because for almost the entire history of BSA, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

  1. Was the single largest chartering group, bar none (the Methodist Church, collectively, came in a distant second).
  2. Exercised an enormous amount of influence over BSA policies and procedures, some of which remain to this day despite the departure of The Church.
  3. Because those religious practices bled over into Scouting. Some were mundane: No raffle tickets for BSA fundraising? Put in by leaders of The Church due to objections over gambling. Some were less mundane. The Church's position on African-Americans directly led to the continuation of racial segregation in scouting for DECADES longer than it should have. It was not until The Church was sued by the Utah chapter of the NAACP that it backed off and BSA was able to come out definitively and unequivocally against racial discrimination in scouting.
  4. For better of for ill, the history of BSA is in many ways synonymous with history of The Church as it applied to youth programming and development. Yes, The Church left 18 months ago, but 90+ years of history and influence did not just suddenly get turned off like a light switch.
  5. Finally, and most critically, many of the current sexual abuse claims and cases include The Church as co-defendants make the case, quite strongly frankly, that for these purposes The Church WAS the BSA and/or Local Council. As noted in #3: when The Church controlled, operated, and directed entire councils, entire programs (Varsity was a direct offshoot of Young Men Mutual Improvement Association) for decades, The Church's practices get dragged into the conversation.  The Church was a driving force, if not THE driving force for scouting in 1/3 to 1/2 of the country for decades.

That said, religious bigotry and intolerance have no place in this conversation. Conversely, simply because a matter may overlap with the practices of The Church as they relate to scouting does not immunize The Church from criticism, especially as those practices pertain to sexual abuse occurred in units chartered by The Church.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One final note: it would be just as relevant and subject to discussion as to whether or not Roman Catholic practices as they pertained to hiding/shielding sexual abusers had an impact on the sexual abuse that took place in units chartered by parishes or other Roman Catholic entities. I know there are several lawsuits filed in NY against the dioceses/archdioceses claiming that the Roman Catholic Church's policies help to protect and shield sexual abuse that should never have been allowed to happen OR that should have been dealt with in a way other than it was.

Having a conversation about whether the RCC's policies and practices led to or contributed to sexual abuse of minors can be done in a way that does NOT disparage Roman Catholics or their faith.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

That said, religious bigotry and intolerance have no place in this conversation. 

That's quite the claim to make after lambasting our faith in this way, don't you think? 🙄

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, elitts said:

Yes, I do tend to put a lot of thought into policies of this nature, trying to consider the viewpoints and needs of all the people and organizations involved because I know that compliance only works when people buy into both the reasons behind a policy and the procedures required to comply with it.  Furthermore, I think avoiding unintended consequences is fairly important with laws and policies involving sensitive issues because it can be significantly harder to fix problems after the fact than it was to establish the law or policy in the first place.  And of course there is the fact that deciding someone else's rights (even if it's a corporation) need to be sacrificed wholesale on the alter of "protecting the children" never sits well with me.

Plus, frankly, when I see someone weighing in on what should be a reasoned and logical discussion with an argument laden with emotional appeal or slanted wording it does tend to make me go the extra mile when countering it.  Take for example your rephrasing of my argument as "defending deferred reporting".  The clear implication of that statement is that I am somehow supporting the idea that there should be a significant time lapse allowed between when someone develops a suspicion of abuse and when they should report it.  And while your statement is technically correct because ANY delay would technically constitute a deferral, your deliberate phrasing is clearly designed to make people think I'm arguing for waiting days or weeks to report a suspicion when I've been pretty clear in saying that all I'm talking about is making a 5-10 minute phone call to a legal department or HR before making a report to the legal apparatus of the state.

I took the time to re read my own comments to make sure I did not inadvertently say anything that could be construed as emotional or offensive because I would not want to do that. I did not. Virtually all my comments are factual -- stating state laws and resources, including ones that are used by BSA, and in some cases providing links. When I have disagreed with you and have been unable to follow your logic, I have clearly said so and been respectful in doing so. Frankly, I think you and others are having emotional reactions  to statements of facts or opinions you don't agree with. I can understand something is your opinion, but I don't think it's emotional to say I don't agree with it or can't follow how you arrived at it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

 

MODERATORS: I wonder how much of this thread is relevant to the purposes and designs of these forums. This subject matter is, frankly, unrelated to Scouting, especially as our faith no longer partners with the Boy Scouts of America. I suggest that this discussion does not fall within the parameters of this website's intentions, and so, perhaps this is a conversation that ought best be had on some other forum at some other time. And if the thread does remain, please include a disclaimer clarifying that many of the claims made about our religion in this thread are false or misleading, and that this topic is not as much about Scouting as it is about the policies and practices of a particular religion. That would seem fair to me. 

 

I think discussions about youth protection in the context of the religious institutions that have been involved in scouting, of which LDS is certainly a dominant one, are perhaps some of the most relevant discussions on this forum. Trying to understand the differing attitudes among all the players involved regarding youth protection policies, training, reporting, etc., has been central to this our greatest crisis and will be exquisitely relevant to any future survival of the BSA. We have to be willing to be brutally honest that we have had attitudes, policies, beliefs, and procedures that have not worked and despite great improvements are still not working as well as they could. I'm Catholic, attend Methodist, and have ecumenical connection to other churches. I have the same discussions and ask the same kinds of questions in those arenas. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, yknot said:

I think discussions about youth protection in the context of the religious institutions that have been involved in scouting, of which LDS is certainly a dominant one, are perhaps some of the most relevant discussions on this forum. Trying to understand the differing attitudes among all the players involved regarding youth protection policies, training, reporting, etc., has been central to this our greatest crisis and will be exquisitely relevant to any future survival of the BSA. We have to be willing to be brutally honest that we have had attitudes, policies, beliefs, and procedures that have not worked and despite great improvements are still not working as well as they could. I'm Catholic, attend Methodist, and have ecumenical connection to other churches. I have the same discussions and ask the same kinds of questions in those arenas. 

I think you would find the discussion surprising. When we were involved chaperoning, attending and transporting youth in church, school, sports and so on, we found their youth protection polices very limiting compared to the BSA youth protection, if they had any guidelines at all. Often the on the spot ad-hoc policies came from scouters who were used to the BSA youth protection.

My wife was always the most nervous youth getting hurt when she chaperoned the annual school group to New York City. But the teacher who led that activity many times took the concern in stride because she never had a problem in the dozen of so years she took the groups.

I can't think of a single youth organization that has the level of guidelines the BSA gives to their units. Schools are terrible with field trips and rely a lot on adults (parents) to keep track of the students. Church camps surprise me on their lack of policies. We struggled with teenagers hiding in the woods to steal a kiss, but I understand that drugs is a huge problem today. I'm sure they are getting better.

Our church wanted to improve transportation safety and the committee went strait to the BSA troop adults for suggestions. 

Even the attempts on this form to discuss youth protection improvements don't go very far because they are pretty good. Maybe because policies against predators are difficult. Of what I've been told, predictors are opportunist looking for a weak spot. The weak spot may be nothing more than ignorance of the average parent.

I'm not sure why LDS is being highlighted, did they follow different policies than the BSA youth protection on their scouting activities. I know the troops in church COs around here follow the BSA guidelines. In fact, I know that the LDS around here did as well.

I understand that some sports associations are requiring background  checks on the coaches, maybe churches are doing it as well. Don't you wonder how many of these incidents occurred by adults who had a background check.

If we are trying to fix a crack in the youth protection system, we need to understand the crack better. Where are these incidents occurring?

Barry

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

At some point, criticism of this nature becomes less about bona fide child safety and more about having found a convenient bludgeon to beat up on institutions we are already predisposed to dislike.

 

5 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

Amen to this statement. I see this far too often on these forums, though fortunately, far less here than in other places.

Far too often authors think they are expressing justified righteous indignation when in fact it's closer to ugly bigotry and motivated by past grudges.  

We all should stick direct connections.  The simple fact is society as a whole did not handle any of this very well in the 1980s or 1990s.  Society started adopting the modern understanding of abuse in the late 1990s / early 2000s.  

People want someone to blame.  You might as well blame every part of society.  

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2021 at 1:55 PM, T2Eagle said:

Does #7 "An individual paid or unpaid, who, on the basis of the individual’s role as an integral part of a regularly scheduled program, activity or service, is a person responsible for the child’s welfare or has direct contact with children" mean scout leaders?

Specifically, it means Jerry Sandusky. Absent this, the original statute would not have included his colleagues.

But generally it means any volunteer who works with youth. (I think that includes youth themselves. Our church puts high school students who volunteer with younger youth through mandatory reporter training.)

Our councils here have not split hairs. Every adult leader is to act as though they are a mandatory reporter.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, qwazse said:

... Our councils here have not split hairs. Every adult leader is to act as though they are a mandatory reporter.

It also includes any parent or volunteer for scouting of any sort who is not registered with BSA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eagledad said:

If we are trying to fix a crack in the youth protection system, we need to understand the crack better. Where are these incidents occurring?

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Far too often authors think they are expressing justified righteous indignation when in fact it's closer to ugly bigotry and motivated by past grudges.  

 I, for one, and not trying to trash anyone here or engage in bigotry.

The Roman Catholic Church has had to (voluntarily and in some cases involuntarily) open up on its past practices, admit error, and seek to rectify the situation. Some of that, yes, did brush up against practices and policies of the Church, but that did NOT mean that all reform minded people were anti-Catholic bigots. I'm of that faith and I don't think my interest is based on bigotry.

But I also think that sometimes those of a particular faith will be be quick to jump onto "you are just anti-RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION". No, it isn't always bigotry or "lambasting" a religion or its faithful to point out that the abuse happened and it happened for the following reasons [FILL IN THE BLANK]. Therefore, don't do [FILL IN THE BLANK] anymore.

SOME times (note SOME times) those of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been very quick that ANY criticism of past practices is immediately bigotry. And, given the past history of persecution of that faith, I get it. But, that does not mean it is immune from examination and criticism.

Nor does it make it immune from lawsuits. https://apnews.com/article/sexual-abuse-by-clergy-lawsuits-arizona-sexual-abuse-90d2cff3ef5668cfc28f3a3269c09b1c

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

 

People want someone to blame.  You might as well blame every part of society.  

 

In my opinion this is the nut. This attitude. If we don't get past it we'll lose scouting. It is not about blame. It is about minimizing risk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, yknot said:

In my opinion this is the nut. This attitude. If we don't get past it we'll lose scouting. It is not about blame. It is about minimizing risk. 

Minimizing risk?  I have no clue what you mean.   But I'm 100% offended that you are asserting this statement is the attitude that will cause us to lose scouting.  Baloney.   Absolute baloney.  

Wanting to blame others is what will cause division and destroy scouting.  Worse, it's just mean and un-scout-like.  

If you really want to protect vulnerable people, you need to understand the patterns and nature of abuse.  You need to look at the many, many varied failure modes.  To repeatedly bash a single source is unconstructive. 

Past society failures to identify and prevent abuse were huge and everywhere.  

 

 

Edited by fred8033
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...