The Mormon Church’s relationship to cases of alleged pedophilia by LDS Boy Scout leaders has been coming to light over time in the wake of a massive court-ordered release of documents known as the BSA's led “Perversion Files” dating back to 1953--evidence, which indicates a systematic and wide-ranging cover-up on the part of Boy Scout national headquarters.
Some of the details involve the Mormon Church.
_____
--Examples of Cases Found in the BSA’s Pedophilic “Perversion Files” Relating to the Mormon Church
*from the “Capital Gazette” in Maryland:
"An assistant scoutmaster in 1974 was accused of taking nude photographs of two boy scouts in [a Maryland-area] Arnold scout troop and later reportedly said he couldn't be held responsible because he was 'under the influence of the devil.'
“A month later, he was accused of harassing the troop at Sandy Point State Park. And though he was banned in Arnold from the scouts, he allegedly was allowed to be alone with them again five years later in Bedford, Pa. . . .
“. . . [T]he case file shows the scout master attempted to be a scout leader in several states after being banned in Arnold. He moved to Scottsdale, Ariz. and attempted in 1976 to apply as an adult leader there, but his attempts were refuted. In 1978, however, files indicate he was allowed alone with scouts in Pennsylvania. A letter from a scoutmaster there, dated May 1979, identifies him as a former scoutmaster of a troop sponsored by the Church of Latter Day Saints or Mormon Church in Bedford, Pa.”
(“Boy Scouts ‘Perversion Files’ Include Seven Cases in Anne Arundel County, About 90 in Maryland,” by Alex Jackson, “Capital Gazette, Baltimore Washington Medical Center, 19 October 2012)
*from an Australian newspaper:
"’What these files represent is ... the pain and the anguish of thousands’ of scouts, said lawyer Paul Mones, while presenting details of the files at a press conference in [Oregon].
“Mones said the files ‘demonstrate the depth and breadth of the BSA's vast knowledge about the threats to scouts by scoutmasters and adult leaders who used their authority . . . to sexually molest generations of boys".’
“The lawyers highlighted a 2010 court case, in which an assistant scoutmaster in a Mormon Church-sponsored troop sexually molested a boy in the 1980s.”
(“US Boy Scout 'Perversion Files' Released,” by Michael Thurston, “The Australian,” 19 October 2012, at:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/us-boy-scout-perversion-files-released/story-fn3dxix6-1226498994916)
_____
--Possible Legal Consquences Facing the Mormon Church
*from a “Forbes” analysis:
“Nobody likes seeing an institution like the Boy Scouts dragged into litigation. Especially over something as disturbing as child sexual abuse. But the very public data dump of “perversion files” that an Oregon judge authorized yesterday does represent one positive attribute of the U.S. legal system: It forces large institutions to rethink how they deal with problems that can affect thousands of individual victims.
“The value of these lawsuits is really not directed to any particular jury verdict or outcome,” said Timothy Lytton, a professor at Albany Law School . . . . ‘These lawsuits tend to frame the issue as an institutional problem, and not a personal problem involving a couple of bad apples.
“The lawyer who forced the public release of the Boy Scouts files probably won’t win too many popularity contests. Kelly Clark won a $20 million verdict against the Scouts on behalf of six plaintiffs in 2010, and his website lists other areas of practice that include ‘Mormon abuse’ . . . .
(“Boy Scout Case, Hate It or Not, Shows Social Value of Litigation,” by Daniel Fisher, “Forbes,” 10 October 2012, at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/10/19/boy-scout-case-hate-it-or-not-shows-social-value-of-litigation/)
_____
--How the Mormon Church May Have Tried to Shield Itself from Liability
*from LDS columnist Joanna Brookes, writing for “Religious Dispatches”
“[The] release of previously confidential files on child sexual abuse perpetrators maintained by the Boy Scouts of America from 1959 to 1985 are raising new questions about the relationship between the LDS Church and the BSA. Since 1918, the Church has partnered with the BSA, hosting scout troops in most of its United States congregations. . . .
“Today, a whopping 34% of Boy Scouts troops nationwide are co-sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But sources who have scrutinized the BSA’s so-called ‘perversion files’ report that fewer than 2% of the cases documented therein are connected with Mormons. It is believed that LDS Church may have handled child abuse cases internally rather than reporting them to BSA officials.
“The LDS Church confronted patterns of child sexual abuse within its own ranks in the 1990s after several high-profile child sexual abuse cases resulted in multimillion dollar payouts to victims and their families. The Mormon Alliance, a grassroots Mormon organization that monitored abuse within the Church, published a study documenting negligence on the part of local members and leaders in addressing abuse—and even the excommunication of some victims and accusers. In 1995, the Church established stronger guidelines and new protocols for reporting abuse, including a 1-800 number for local clergy.”
(“Boy Scout ‘Perversion Files’ Raises Questions about Abuse in Mormon Contexts,” by Joanna Brooks, 19 October 2012, at:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/6534/boy_scout_%22perversion_files%22_raises_questions_about_abuse_in_mormon_c)
**********
Batten down the hatches, Brethren.
The chickens are coming home to roost--and they're aiming for your wallets.
(related RfM thread: "I was Sexually Abused in an LDS Boy Scout Troop," osted by A"nonymousPoster," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 10 October 2012, at:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,677407)
**P.S.:
Lisa Davis--a solid and respected journalist who is a stickler for facts, a gifted writer and a former writer for the Phoenix, AZ, "New Times"--wrote a book entitled "The Sins of Brother Curtis: A Story of Betrayal, Conviction, and the Mormon Church" [New York, New York: Scribner, a divison of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2011], 354 pp].
The LDS Church's defense of "Brother [Frank] Curtis"--a pedophilic LDS Scout leader who had been excommunicated and then, astoundingly enough, re-baptized, where he continued to have Mormon youth under his "care"--was disingenuous, disgusting and pure evil.
Lisa got in touch with me about the Curtis case, requesting background information on Mormon teachings and other matters. (For instance, we also talked about proper language and terminology she needed to use in her book, in order to have credibility with Mormon readers when speaking to Mormon history, doctrine and culture). (Lisa kindly noted my assistance under "Acknowledgements," p. 340; for an online version of the book, see:
http://www.amazon.com/Sins-Brother-Curtis-Betrayal-Conviction/dp/1416591036#reader_1416591036).
When in the course of our discussions Lisa informed me that the Mormon Church had advanced the defense in behalf of Curtis that it (the Mormon Church) was doctrinally required to re-baptize Curtis once he had repented of his sins (Curtis was a convicted criminal with a history of sexual molestation of minors), I pointed out to her what I viewed as the relevant portions of Mormon doctrine which clearly applied to such an unwarranted defense.
I emphasized that as a response to the LDS legal/theological argument that re-baptism of repeat sexual offender Curtis somehow cleansed him of his past sins and that he had thus started over with a "clean slate," Lisa should review canonized Mormon doctrine on the matter, as found in D&C 82:7.
This particular "holy scripture" of Mormonism emphatically declares that a person--once forgiven of a sin but who then recommits the same sin--is subject to divine punishment for recommitting that sin, as well as becomes re-subjected to divine punishment for the sin in which he had previously engaged; for which he was originally forgiven; but which he then recommitted.
The pertinent D&C passage reads as follows:
“And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any asin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the bformer sins return, saith the Lord your God.”
As one critic observed of this official Mormon doctrine:
“According to LDS Scripture, true repentance is confessing sin and forsaking it or never returning to it again. As former [LDS] prophet Spencer Kimball has said, 'The forsaking of sin must be a permanent one. True repentance does not permit making the same mistake again.' If you repeat a sin, all of your 'former sins return.' Therefore, on the LDS view it is not enough to try your best. Rather, you must stop sinning. Period."
(Brett Kunkle, "The Impossible Gospel of Mormonism,” at:
http://www.str.org/articles/the-impossible-gospel-of-mormonism#.VBAUGlZx-1w; see also the LDS tract, published by the LDS Church [1984], entitled "Repentance Brings Forgiveness," where the Kimball statement appears, p. 7)
This pathetic and desperate attempt by the Mormon Church's hired guns to absolve persistent pedophile "Brother" Frank Curtis of legal, moral and religious responsiblity for his sins of sexual predation (since he had been rebaptized and therefore was supposedly immunized from accountablity) is fundamentally undercut by Mormon doctrine itself.
Not that that fact matters one whit to the Mormon Church.
Worse than that, the fact that the Mormon Church would even attempt a defense of this perennial pervert is absolutely despicable.
As one reviewer of Lisa's book observed:
"Mormon Church leaders knew that Frank Curtis had a habitual need to molest young boys, yet they continued to place him in positions where he had access to more victims."
(Don Lattin, book review, "'The Sins of Brother Curtis,' by Lisa Davis," Special to "The Chronicle" [San Francisco], 19 March 2011, at:
http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/The-Sins-of-Brother-Curtis-by-Lisa-Davis-2388166.php)
Indeed, as another reviewer noted, Curtis had "even been excommunicated, then re-baptized and returned to the positions from which he preyed upon children."
("Child Molester + Mormons = Easy Prey," by Ken Munger, "Sacramento News & Review," 15 March 2011, at;
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/bibliolatry/blogs/post?oid=1939245)
It amazes and sickens me the extent to which the Mormon Church ignores its own doctrine in order to protect its bank account (not to mention how it grotesquely ducks its obligation to broader matters of human decency in delivering up for moral and legal accountability those who horrendously victimize young children).
Such an approach is obviously too much to expect of the corrupt Mormon Cult.
(for related RfM thread, see:
http://exmormon.org/phorum)/read.php?2,1373582Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2014 05:18AM by steve benson.