Call to Ban Morman married fathers

[bluecrash]

Maybe BSA should bar all Mormon men who are married from serving as unit leaders!

 

====================

Sex-crimes charges against Blue Springs man surprise neighbors

 

By ERIK PETERSEN and JOE ROBERTSON

The Kansas City Star

 

David Neil Brown, active in the Mormon church and as a Boy Scout leader, was the kind of person friends and neighbors liked having around.

 

He kept computers in his house and bees in his yard, and people could rely on him to help with a new computer or drop off honey.

 

Now they are trying to reconcile those memories with the 32 charges of statutory sodomy brought against the Blue Springs man this week by the Jackson County prosecutor's office.

 

Court documents allege that Brown had sexual contact repeatedly with five boys between 1997 and 2001. Brown was arraigned Thursday and will appear at a preliminary hearing Wednesday.

 

"My experience has been very, very positive with him," said Diane Mack, a Blue Springs parent who knew Brown through church and Boy Scouting. "This takes my breath away."

 

Her son, Josh Mack, 18, was a close friend of the Brown family, particularly David Brown. Brown helped Mack with his Eagle Scout project and was someone he could call on any time for help. Josh Mack said he had gone on Scout outings with Brown, and called him a "good friend."

 

"I don't believe it," Josh Mack said. "He just was not the kind of guy to do something like that. If anything like that was going on with him, it had to have been kept in the most deepest, deepest place."

 

Brown and his wife have a large family, and their house -- with a swing set in the back yard -- was a popular neighborhood destination.

 

"They were extremely involved in church," neighbor Ruth Yunker said. "They seemed like a very happy couple at homeowners meetings."

 

Many church members can tell stories about Brown and his family and how he was always eager to help people in need, said Ray Christensen, who knew Brown from the church and from Boy Scouting.

 

Brown has taught adult and youth Sunday school classes and helped with many church programs over the years, said Christensen, who is public affairs director for a group of Mormon churches that includes those in Blue Springs. The denomination is formally known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Christensen has an adopted son who is battling lupus. When a social service group gave his son a laptop computer, Brown showed the boy how to use it.

 

Brown "always seemed forthright," Christensen said. "He always seemed very kind. This (the criminal case) has totally caught me off guard."

 

Brown worked with a church-affiliated Scout troop, Christensen said, and troop leaders are trained in Scout regulations that require at least two adult leaders to be with boys at any time.

 

The church applies the same rule to its youth programs, he said.

 

"The church has always been so careful," he said.

 

According to police reports, most of the encounters took place at Brown's home. However, several reportedly happened at area parks, and at least one allegedly occurred at a Scout campout.

 

Brown volunteered as an assistant scoutmaster from 1999 to March 2002, when the allegations began to surface and he was removed, following Boy Scout policy for any registered leader suspected of child abuse.

 

In a prepared statement, the Boy Scouts' Heart of America Council extended its sympathy and support to the children and families. The council also stated that it followed the Scouts' Youth Protection Program fully after learning of the allegations and will continue cooperating with law enforcement.

 

The council also noted that it has not been proved that any of the alleged events took place on Scout trips or functions. Regardless of that, the council said, counseling will be made available for the affected families and children.

 

The regional spokesman for the Mormon church also released a statement expressing sadness at the allegations and pledging full cooperation with authorities.

 

 

 

 

[Weekender]

Sounds like his problem lies with being a homosexual pedophile rather than a married Mormon. We just need to be clear on what actions we want to exclude.

[NJCubScouter]

Weekender says:

 

Sounds like his problem lies with being a homosexual pedophile rather than a married Mormon.

 

But not an avowed homosexual. The BSA's anti-gay policy would not have affected him at all. In all the cases I have read of in which a male Scouter (or other youth group leader) molested boys, the perpetrator always seems to be "in the closet." It isn't healthy in there. I myself would worry much less about my son being led by an openly gay person than someone who seems on the surface to be happily married but has all this conflict going on in their mind about whether to live their real life or not, until one day they "snap" and start hurting innocent children. Problem is, you don't know who that person is until it's too late, if not for your own child then for somebody else's.

 

We just need to be clear on what actions we want to exclude.

 

The BSA anti-gay policy does not exclude any actions. It excludes talking about what one's sexual orientation is, if one is gay.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[evmori]

NJ,

Avowed or not, a homosexual is still a homosexual and has no place in Scouting.

 

Do you think homosexuals (avowed or not) are good role models? Would you want your son to be in a Troop that has a homosexual (avowed or not) as the SM?

 

IMHO, a homosexual (avowed or not) cannot be a good role model for Scouts. Homosexuality is a behavior that has no place in Scouting.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[evmori]

NJ,

Avowed or not, a homosexual is still a homosexual and has no place in Scouting.

 

Do you think homosexuals (avowed or not) are good role models? Would you want your son to be in a Troop that has a homosexual (avowed or not) as the SM?

 

IMHO, a homosexual (avowed or not) cannot be a good role model for Scouts. Homosexuality is a behavior that has no place in Scouting.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[littlebillie]

evmori,

 

I would suggest this statment as maybe a little more accurate...

 

"sexuality of any kind is behavior that has no place in Scouting".

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not sure heterosexuality or homosexuality has a place in scouting, any kind of sexuality has no place in scouting.

 

I would rather have my son be in a troop with an avowed homosexual scoutmaster who follows the Guide to Safe Scouting religiously than in a troop with a heterosexual appearing scoutmaster who is a pedophile.

 

PS Dang littlebillie, you snuck in while I was composing mine(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Rooster7]

So, a husband embraces his wife in the parking lot before leaving on a Scout trip. There's a short kiss and a firm hug. Does this qualify as sexuality?

 

How about this? A 24-year-old male ASM is part of the two-deep leadership on a whitewater trip. During the trip, a 23-year-old female river guide subtly flirts with the ASM, which the ASM subtly returns. Eventually the boys become aware that these two are dating (via observation around town - female drops the ASM off at a meeting, they're seen at the movie theatre, etc.). Has the ASM introduced sexuality into the program by reciprocating the flirtation and dating this young lady?

 

Baden-Powell basically said he would never initiate a conversation with a boy about sex without the permission of his parents. That seems reasonable to me. However, if given permission, he said it was the Scoutmaster's duty to guide a boy in this area. littlebillie and OGE, what's your opinion on this matter?

 

Bob White (I can't believe I'm asking you guy, but I know you know the answer), what's BSA policy on this subject (i.e., SM has parental permission to advise the boy on sexual matters)?

 

[OldGreyEagle]

That men and women in and out of scouting have friends who are both men and women should come as no surprise to the scouts who have friends who are both boys and girls. It is the nature of these realationships that no one whether in BSA or otherwise has any business prying into. Wives and husbands kiss in the parking lot, when a football player scores a touchdown or otherwise makes a good play his butt is roundly patted, men of various ethnic backgrounds kiss each other as a standard greeting, A new brotherhood member is embraced by Allowat Sakima, I am not sure I want to judge the sexuality of each action.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[littlebillie]

Rooster7,

 

Well, we're still a hugging family, and a quick public kiss (no tongue!) is socially appropriate.

 

Once you get past that - flirting so that the boys notice WILL distract from the primary mission, and responsibly should be discouraged in the best of all possible worlds. Would it? Well, that SO depends on the individuals and the Troop's own standards, I suppose. Whatever - it's gonna get in the way, and if one thing leads to another, it could be quite an issue.

 

Still, human nature, eh?

 

Anyway. " However, if given permission, he said it was the Scoutmaster's duty to guide a boy in this area. littlebillie and OGE, what's your opinion on this matter?"

 

Well, I don't know the official policy. But I would start with these basics. The SM would need to really cover the area with the parents (and religious leader if possible and apprpriate - more on this later) ahead of time, to make sure they're all on the same page at least in theory (yeah, you can read a lot into this, and it's intended. some gay families may recognize that their kid is straight, and want to give him a good model - so here, the SM may very well be at odds with the family, but all agree on the SM as model in theory. Some single moms may have issues to add as well. Anyway, a pre-qual discussion with the family is all to the good).

 

 

Next. 2 deep comes in - at least, it really should - and I'd suggest that in any discussion, the second party could/should be the boy's family or family member. This covers the 2 deep thing and makes sure that the family has a chance to step in at any time to expand, redirect, whatever. thinking about it, 3 deep might be better, with another Scouter involved just to help protect against any kind of entrapment issue. (Not saying it's going to happen, but you might as well cover all the bases).

 

Now the foregoing addresses organized sit-down stuff. Realistically, it's possible for the kid to address the SM out on a hike about something that's been bothering him. So the question becomes, address it then and there (some advantages, some risks) or tell the boy you'll talk to him about it later when his family's available? And if the kid doesn't want the family involved? Does the SM tell them about discussions after the fact, and risk violating the boy's trust? And what about 2 deep if the kid's already feeling awkward or embarrassed? I guess this is where it gets sticky enough for me to want to say NO discussions of this kind at all..? Not sure. If the issue is the regular "well, how do you talk to a girl" thing, it's pretty general and pretty safe. But if it gets really sticky, maybe it's got to go to "Sorry Bobby, I'm not the one to talk aabout this with you. If you can't discuss it with your folks, maybe I could talk to them for you - or with you - cause they need to know about this. Or I think you can talk to Reverend Appleton about it."

 

The good Reverend is in a slightly different position than the SM, and the boy MAY not be offput by the ball getting passed this way.

 

So some key points.

 

SM and family need to meet and discuss.

2- or even 3- deep really need to be part of it.

SM should have a stand-in and/or a hand-off for certain situations, possibly to be id'd in the initial family discussion.

 

 

Just some thoughts.

 

So - now tell me what's policy? :-)

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

I understand. Sexuality (in various forms - subtle, and not so subtle) are a part of life. I believe that there are healthy examples there of, such as an embrace and kiss between a husband and wife. Of course, there are limits to such public behavior especially around Scouts. Nevertheless, I contend that it is practically impossible to eliminate all examples and/or signs of sexuality.

 

Furthermore, to some degree, we should mentor healthy interactions between the sexes. Don't get too carried away with that previous statement. Take my ASM/river guide example. I wouldn't necessarily expect a 24-year-old male ASM to ignore the expressed signs of interest by an attractive 23-year-old river guide. I would expect his behavior to be self-monitored, self-controlled, and respectful. I would find it perfectly acceptable if the ASM expressed his interest as long as it was not rude, crude, unrestrained, and undisciplined. In other words, as long as he subtly mentors a healthy and respectful way of expressing interest in the opposite sex. I am not saying - he should be conducting "classes" or calling specific attention to his actions. I am saying - attraction between the sexes is normal and his behavior should reflect the character of a Scouter.

 

[Rooster7]

littlebillie,

 

I guess we're in agreement. At least, there's not much in your posting that I would argue against. I do have this to add. If I knew the parents were homosexuals and/or if I considered their views on sexuality to be immoral, I would not agree to be an intermediate. I would not endorse immorality.

 

Here's a potentially big quandary for me (and I'm not sure how I would handle it)...A boy (whose parents believe homosexuality is not immoral) approaches me and tells me he is confused about his "orientation". I would be very much torn - Do I tell him what I think and know in my heart to be true? (it's rhetorical, so please don't reply) Or, do I play it safe, and refer him to someone else? I know what most Scouters would say. I know what the best answer is, legally. If that was my only concern, I could easily answer my own question. However, I'm more concerned about what God would say.

 

[Weekender]

Rooster,

 

You and I agree on most everything that comes up on this forum. And I have found nothing in this string where we differ. You opened a door on a topic that I'm not sure you would agree with me but who knows...I'm adressing this to everyone but you were the one that brought up married couples.

 

As far as husbands and wives are concerned, in our troop, if both attend a campout they tent together. We have NEVER had a problem with inappropriate behavior and I would be quick to speak to parents if I thought they were out of bounds with the example they were setting. I do believe however, that there is a natural order of life that includes marraige between a man and a woman and that the more the boys see examples of strong loving marital relationships the better.

 

 

[littlebillie]

Rooster7

 

" Or, do I play it safe, and refer him to someone else?"

 

Yeah, the tough questions... I always have to remind myself that "playing it safe" isn't necessariy a cop-out, especially when it's also playing according to the rules. But even there, with no family permission made explicit, I guess I can always offer to talk with the family with or for the boy, or even to ask them if it's ok to talk about it WITH the boy in the future.

 

If the boy's approached you in confidence, tho', but it's something big'n'ugly - do you tell the parents?

 

Probably good to have a Troop policy on just this issue made explicit as the boys enter. "Crimes will be reported to the proper authorities, and great big personal problems will be relayed to your parents or the proper agency." That way, there's no betrayal.

 

 

 

 

[Rooster7]

Weekender,

 

I do believe however, that there is a natural order of life that includes marraige between a man and a woman and that the more the boys see examples of strong loving marital relationships the better.

 

You have no argument with me. I agree.