BSA CSA: Concealment or Trustworthy, Loyal...?

[ThenNow]

On 7/29/2022 at 1:43 PM, johnsch322 said:

At Vandenburg I also saw the silos and yes that was kind of cool. But I was also raped there by two airmen (BSA Volunteers) on base property.  Guess which situation had the most impact on my life?

My SM abuser was in the Army National Guard. He borrowed vehicle for our campouts. He took me there many times...

[skeptic]

Today there is a fairly extensive piece on the LDS in Bisbee and so on.  This is only conjecture or poking for clarity, but I find myself wondering if the BSA officials that appareently made the under the carpet choice ordeflected were mostly LDS, since at the time they were huge influences on the National Council?  No accusation, only curiosity.

[ThenNow]

4 hours ago, skeptic said:

I find myself wondering if the BSA officials that appareently made the under the carpet choice ordeflected

So I’m sure I understand your ponderings, by “under the carpet” and “deflected” you’re referring to the concealment theme that started our conversation? Thanks.

[FormerCubmaster]

On 8/5/2022 at 12:44 PM, skeptic said:

Today there is a fairly extensive piece on the LDS in Bisbee and so on.  This is only conjecture or poking for clarity, but I find myself wondering if the BSA officials that appareently made the under the carpet choice ordeflected were mostly LDS, since at the time they were huge influences on the National Council?  No accusation, only curiosity.

I think Kosnoff has suggested at times that the LDS church was the “power behind the throne” with the BSA and should be jointly and severally liable on every single claim against the BSA.  If he has evidence of that, then I suppose it will come out through the legal system in due course.

But the specific instances cited in the new article have to do with very narrow circumstances in which perpetrators made a confession to an ecclesiastical leader which, depending on the legal jurisdiction where it occurred, may have been subject to legal privilege; and it sounds like the church’s legal advisors may have given bad advice with regard to whether such a disclosure can legally be reported under Arizona law specifically.  In Oregon recently there was a case where the ecclesiastical leader *did* report such a disclosure to the legal authorities, and as a result the church was sued for violating clerical privilege.

In a broader context, where clerical privilege doesn’t apply, the official church policy (though sadly, sometimes honored more in the breach than in the observance as individual bishops take it upon themselves to “help a good man repent” while keeping him out of jail/preserve his family and profession and social standing) has long been to report the abuse to the legal authorities.  The controversial thing (and I believe this has come up on this very forum) is whether it’s appropriate for anyone, LDS or not, to seek legal advice before making a report of child abuse; and a lot of people are really uncomfortable with the Church having institutionalized and mandated any sort of pre-reporting legal-advice-seeking process for its hierarchy.

See, eg, 

https://publicsquaremag.org/editorials/are-reported-sexual-abuse-cases-exceptional-or-illustrative-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ/

and

https://www.deseret.com/2022/8/5/23292405/i-survived-abuse-church-help-line-ap-story-broke-my-heart-latter-day-saints-associated-press-mormon

 

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by FormerCubmaster