247 replies to this topic

[BMD]

USU78, it was obviously the duty of the bishop to inform civil authorities, that the matter would be taken to the law of the land, both as common sense & as the D&C direct.

Intuition is absolutely fine (and even helpful) in some matters, but in others, such as the present, there are established procedural guidelines. If calling them to you attention makes me a "bigot" in your eyes, then that's an acrimoniously-intended epithet i'll most happily accomodate myself to   .

ys,
BMD.

[Garden Girl]

It particularly stings we LDS when we find someone within the Church has been so reprehensible as to abuse a child, particularly with our emphasis on home,  families and creating a loving, spiritual atmosphere for them to grow and mature.  The truly sad thing is that we are now finding out as a society that this type of abuse crosses ALL, repeat ALL, economic, social and religious lines.  The Church has taken steps to provide more guidance to bishops and other leaders on their responsibilities in such cases... I will say, however, that no Church -- Mormon or otherwise -- can be responsible for what individual members choose to do in their own homes, including the terrible act of abuse... spousal or child.  In addition to providing better guidance to leaders, President Hinckley and the Quorum of the Twelve HAVE made a statement...

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God..."

Those of our critics who are now chortling over this "Mormon" comeuppance best be careful of their darts... do they really believe there are not abusers within their own ranks?  This is a problem that we ALL should make every effort to address for the sake of the abused.    GG

[thesometimesaint]

Dear Mee:

Many many religions have a professional ministry/clergy and that still hasn't prevented the allegations of abuse. Your quip about 19th Century Amatuers is at best a Red-Herring, and at worst an ad-Hominem.

[USU78]

Quote

To depend upon part-time amateurs to attend to parishoners in the 21st century, as they did in the 19th, is unreasonable if not unconscionable when considered in our advancing state of social-emotional hygiene.

And the fact that the ultimate example of "full-time professional" clergy in the RCC having actual clergy involved in examples of child abuse too numerous to count, as well as a "velvet underground" just now being looked at (as far as we know) is not sufficient evidence to make one wonder whether the issue is really professional vs. nonprofessional, part-time vs. full-time?

I myself, with Alma Sr. and Gideon, am suspicious of Nehors.

But I imagine there appeared to be good and sufficient reasons for Nehor, Amlici and the rest to promote professional clergy.  It's just that those "good and sufficient reasons" were and are more than counterbalanced by the evils of priestcraft.

No thenkyewverymuch.

[USU78]

Wholly missing the point, BMD said:

Quote

USU78, it was obviously the duty of the bishop to inform civil authorities, that the matter would be taken to the law of the land, both as common sense & as the D&C direct.

Given the history of jurisdictional fights over the right of the state to compel the church and its agents to do x, y or z, I think it unwise to jumpt to such conclusions as "obviously."  It wasn't obvious at all.  Just because a legislature thinks something is a good idea doesn't mean it is.

Then, missing the point again, BMD said:

Quote

Intuition is absolutely fine (and even helpful) in some matters, but in others, such as the present, there are established procedural guidelines. If calling them to you attention makes me a "bigot" in your eyes, then that's an acrimoniously-intended epithet i'll most happily accomodate myself to.

Once again, you imply there are not presently procedural guidelines in place, notwithstanding you should have been disabused of the notion given the substance of prior posts.  Do you hold that those posters were lying?

Then there's the implicit slam on gifts of the Spirit in your insistence that they constitute "intuition" and nothing more.

Nobody here has slammed your beliefs.

Please do not slam ours.

[Confidential Informant]

I love it when the "I-was-so-much-more-enlightened-back-then" crowd joins the discussion.  

Quote

You are absolutely correct! And the reason why THE church must advance to a more "Professional Ministry". Not that that will solve all problems, but it would at least make for a heightened degree of credibility and responsibility.

Actually, I think the lay ministry does just fine.  The only need is for additional training and resources and the Bishops now have that.  They have 24/7 access to legal/psychological/social counseling.  The Church has instituted all kinds of programs to makes its bishops aware of their responsibilities when dealing w/ issues of abuse.  That's why the vast majority of the cases you see these days, including this one under discussion, occured pre-1994.

Quote

To depend upon part-time amateurs to attend to parishoners in the 21st century, as they did in the 19th, is unreasonable if not unconscionable when considered in our advancing state of social-emotional hygiene.

I'm curious as to what role you think the Bishops should be playing here.

Quote

My personal 50+ years of LDS experience, in maaany "callings", has left me with sure knowledge that we have not always been well served by "leaders" attempting to administer out of a hand-book in subject areas they barely understood the terminology of. Or by "leaders" who would "spin" their way around details to avoid and deny the reality of serious offences to escape public ridicule.   

Well gee, there's a revelation: Mormon leaders aren't perfect.  Go figure.  Never heard that one before.  

Quote

As a verrry-mature student at BYUH, called as ExSec in my Ward, i was privy to goings-on in the area. It was a time of considerable attacks on women and B&Es. At a specially called meeting of municiple (Honolulu) and church officers, i was appalled by church officials not wanting municipal involvement in the remedy! Tax paying citizens were denied the benefit of tax paid for police protection giving way to volunteer street patrols by LDS Vigilante types organized under Stake Leader?ship!! It was a "revelation" that was an "awakening" very "disillusioning" and consequently "enlightening"!

Huh?  This makes no sense.  

At any rate, here is what annoys me.  People who experience abuse go to their bishop and tell him, and then get angry when he counsels forgiveness and love for the offender despite that fact that this is exactly what his calling requires of him.

If the victim wants legal help, go to the cops. If the victim was spiritual help, go to the bishop, but stop mixing the two up as if they are interchangable.  

Quote

I think this investigation and judgement should be cheered by responsible LDS.

So some moron abuses his kids and my Church is somehow responsible?  That's just flat out dumb.

Quote

This is not something to lament or attempt to deny, under-rate or find excuses for. It is house-cleaning and a call for institution examination all too long in coming, IMSCO, that is.

But you keep missing the point: the clean was already done.  It happened in 1994.  Since that time things have changed drastically, and they continue to do so.  The Church already recognized the issues and dealt w/ the problems.  Such occurances are now relatively rare (though not unheard of).  

Your post is just another example of the "I'm-so-much-more-advanced-than-you" mentality of many of our critics.

C.I.

[BCSpace]

Quote

You are absolutely correct! And the reason why THE church must advance to a more "Professional Ministry". Not that that will solve all problems, but it would at least make for a heightened degree of credibility and responsibility. 

Quote

Actually, I think the lay ministry does just fine.

I think it does too.  All that really needs to happen is for the law to protect the privacy of the confessor and confessee.

[MorningStar]

The thing that really sucks about these situations is if the bishop reports abuse, HE can't press charges.  If the victim and witnesses of the abuse refuse to press charges, then nothing happens to the abuser.  Until victims have the courage to report the abuse themselves, this crap will continue.  What about their mothers that knew about the abuse for years?  Are they going to be sued too?  Oh that's right.  The mothers don't usually have millions of dollars, so let's sue the church even though the mothers have the greatest ability to get their children out of the situation in the first place.  

In our Primary, we have two people teaching the classes now - usually husbands and wives.  No one is allowed to teach the children alone anymore.  Is this just our ward, or is this going on throughout the church now?

[Observer]

Confidential Informant, on Nov 22 2005, 10:37 AM, said:

In the Bishops defense (assuming the story we got is correct and not simply the representations of one side) to him, the notion of a father sexually abusing his kids may have been quite foreign and utterly unfathomable.  

Well thank goodness something can give this Bishop a deep sigh of relief. We too can all breathe easy now that CI has explained a perfect scenario where we might all identify with the 'every-body's human' actions of the Bishop (not wanting to act on "quite foreign and utterly unfathomable" things).

I find it unfathomable that your primary concern here is in what ways the Bishop's actions (inaction) can be adequately explained. Should we also attempt an adequate explanation for the actions of the abusive father? If I had personal knowledge or even suspicion of ongoing child sexual abuse and reasoned myself into doing nothing...oh what a heavy, guilt ridden burden that would be (and for good reason).

The adult portion of society that rationalizes or attempts to minimize the repulsive actions of child sexual abusers with psycho-babble and 'nurture the criminal' type of concerns is truly a strong ally to pedophiles and child molesters everywhere.

Ditto for the adult portion of society that rationalizes and defends inaction, where action is always (even the slightest) warranted. Law abiding adults who convince themselves that actions to protect children from their sexual abusers are just too complicated or difficult are literally in alliance with the sexual abusers themselves. Responsible adults are usually a fearful child's only hope. Maybe society in general will understand this in another couple of generations.  

[USU78]

MorningStar, on Nov 22 2005, 11:32 AM, said:

In our Primary, we have two people teaching the classes now - usually husbands and wives.  No one is allowed to teach the children alone anymore.  Is this just our ward, or is this going on throughout the church now?

Same thing in my ward.

A brief aside:  Some 20 years ago a friend of mine was bishop of a Salt Lake City ward that had a lot of "transient members" coming and going.  With one fellow's membership paperwork came a report of his serial pedophilia.  They kept the matter quiet, as they should, as the man had "done his time" in prison.  They also took the extraordinary step of having a member assigned to "shadow" this particular man whenever he left a classroom or the chapel, to ensure he had no opportunity to be alone with children.  Only the bishopric knew why, as the assigned "shadow" was never informed the reason for his assignment.  He probably had a good idea, however.

What a horrible thing that we must take such extraordinary measures when our individual duties are so very clear.

[KevinG]

I will add that it's not only the Church who has updated their ppolicy on what is to be reported and what is to be confidnential in the time since this case.  Many states have enacted policies that negate confidentiality in professional interview situations the moment the person reveals they have broken the law.  I now inform people of that when I do professional interviews for Human Resource related functions.

Im Glad the Church clarified this in 1984, and saw it as a good reaction to a bad situation, but I still think transferring culpability from a confused and ineffective Bishop to a Church who NEVER had a doctrine or practice of hiding crimes, and indeed had a policy that crimes are to be delt with civily as part of the repentance process, is a bad decision by the jury.

That in no way indicates that I think the whole situation isn't terrible, or think that abuse should be confidential, of that the Church as a whole has ever thought that.  This does not equate with a Church who has debated what to do with abusers.  We have never had an issue with that, we excommunicate them.  In the case of predators we don't even need a discipline council, we just do it.

[USU78]

Quote

Maybe society in general will understand this in another couple of generations.

vs.



Yup.  Just wait on a couple of generations and a few billion$ in education.  Things'll get better.  Definitely.

[auteur55]

Well morningstarw we are certainly entering a time of unprecedented paranoia. Missionaries can no longer even go near someones child without breaking the mission rules ( the church has learned what can happen when a harmless missionary plays with someones children) an unbelievably strict and unfortunate rule. It wouldn't surprise me, if these lawsuits continue, to see the church instituting strict, white handbook type rules on members while engaged in church activities. It most likely will come to this. Heck even the word of wisdom was given to benefit "the weakest." We may all suffer similar consequences. The church is anything but the enemy here. The church does everything in its power to propagate values of chastity and virtue while condemning abuse in any form. The church had probably done more to prevent abuse then we know but you certaintly wouldn't hear about any of those situations. Sexual abuse is a huge problem that has nothing to do religions but with our society. Lets hope the church can institute future programs that will help us fight this horrible evil before it becomes an epidemic. Litigations only opens the doors for vultures rather than preventing a solution.

[BMD]

USU78 said:

"Wholly missing the point, BMD said:


QUOTE (BMD)
USU78, it was obviously the duty of the bishop to inform civil authorities, that the matter would be taken to the law of the land, both as common sense & as the D&C direct. /QUOTE


"Given the history of jurisdictional fights over the right of the state to compel the church and its agents to do x, y or z, I think it unwise to jumpt to such conclusions as "obviously." It wasn't obvious at all. Just because a legislature thinks something is a good idea doesn't mean it is"

Not obvious? Not absolutely crystalline in clarity that a known molestor of children be  reported??? That he be removed from the bedrooms of his children???

USU78 went on to say:

"Then, missing the point again, BMD said:


QUOTE (BMD)
Intuition is absolutely fine (and even helpful) in some matters, but in others, such as the present, there are established procedural guidelines. If calling them to you attention makes me a "bigot" in your eyes, then that's an acrimoniously-intended epithet i'll most happily accomodate myself to. /QUOTE


"Once again, you imply there are not presently procedural guidelines in place, notwithstanding you should have been disabused of the notion given the substance of prior posts. Do you hold that those posters were lying?"

Point out where this is "implicit", please, in your dogged effort to alienate other posters from my position on this matter. A little bit of "creative reading" on your part, possibly?

Then USU78 said:

"Then there's the implicit slam on gifts of the Spirit in your insistence that they constitute "intuition" and nothing more.

Nobody here has slammed your beliefs.

Please do not slam ours. "

Show how intuition ("learning from within") is a "slam", implicit or otherwise, on gifts of the Spirit. Clearly, if that bishop had been receptive to the Spirit's tutelage, things would not have deteriorated to the level they did.

Try as you might, USU78, you'll not, by misconstruing my words and intent, make an Anti-Mormon out of me.

ys,
BMD.

[Confidential Informant]

[edited]

Quote

Well thank goodness something can give this Bishop a deep sigh of relief. We too can all breathe easy now that CI has explained a perfect scenario where we might all identify with the 'every-body's human' actions of the Bishop (not wanting to act on "quite foreign and utterly unfathomable" things).

So in your world all is black and white? There are no valid explanations? No valid excuses for bad decisions?  I'm glad you aren't my parent.

The sermon continues:

Quote

I find it unfathomable that your primary concern here is in what ways the Bishop's actions (inaction) can be adequately explained.

I find it unfathomable that you assert that as my primary concern since I never made any such declaration.  I was simply exploring one possible explanation for a single facet of this story.  How you conflated that into my "primay concern" is beyond me.

Quote

Should we also attempt an adequate explanation for the actions of the abusive father?

I suppose we could and I suppose many folks more qualified than I have.  But his motivations aren't relevant to what I discussing.

Quote

If I had personal knowledge or even suspicion of ongoing child sexual abuse and reasoned myself into doing nothing...oh what a heavy, guilt ridden burden that would be (and for good reason).

The very ironic part of this is that, for all you know, the Bishop in question carries that very burden.  Your simple-minded approach to this topic, however, prevents you from recognizing that fact.

Quote

The adult portion of society that rationalizes or attempts to minimize the repulsive actions of child sexual abusers with psycho-babble and 'nurture the criminal' type of concerns is truly a strong ally to pedophiles and child molesters everywhere.

This is truly a bizarre statement seeing as how no one participating in this thread has even suggested at minimizing the abuser's actions. Moreover, there has been no "psychobabble" and no "nurture the criminal" statements.  In fact, most of the conversation has revolved around the legalities of holding a third party libel for the abusers actions.  No excuse for his actions has been or will be (I suspect) offered.  Thus, your comment is just another red herring with no relevance to this actual discussion.

Quote

Ditto for the adult portion of society that rationalizes and defends inaction, where action is always (even the slightest) warranted.

Obviously more black and white thinking from someone who has never actually had to deal with the prospect of acting on conflicting information when that information might actually ruin the life of a perfectly innocent man.  Your hysteria-fueled rantings have no logical basis.  There are merely the product of shallow, emotion-based thought processes.

Quote

Law abiding adults who convince themselves that actions to protect children from their sexual abusers are just too complicated or difficult are literally in alliance with the sexual abusers themselves.

Wow!  No there is jump in logic.  So a vague suspicion now equates to complicity?

Quote

Responsible adults are usually a fearful child's only hope. Maybe society in general will understand this in another couple of generations.�?� 

Actually, I think society has that lesson down pretty well by now.  And I'm in a position to know seeing as how I work in a prosecutors office and have the chance to see all the cases of abuse that are reported to us via third parties, especially LDS bishops and members.

C.I.

[thesometimesaint]

Observer:

Again What would you have the Bishop do? He has NO law enforcement authority. He can't use the authority of the state to arrest anybody. He can't legally remove the children. He can't even talk to them without a parents permission. His hands are legally tied. WHAT do you want him to do?

[charity]

BMD asked me: "My question too, charity. What constitutes the girl's "disobedience to the Lord" here- 1.. Telling?  2. Seeking remunerative compensation?(that may never restore those feelings of purity and innocence that every kid should be allowed to grow up with?) Is she now "worse off"?

This was way back when I said seeking vengeance is disobeying God. (I was not ignoring you, BMD.  I was gone for a while.)

Of course, she should have told. And should have told sooner to save her sister from going through what she did.  I find that pretty repugnant that she didn't.  And I am sure she is suffering pangs of conscience that she could not get up the courage to do that.

But in sueing the Church, she knew she was not going after those most responsible, her father, and her mother for telling her not to tell.  She went after money.  Money would not restore her stolen childhood.  It was vengenace pure and simple.  In our mortal experience, vengeance comes from the adversary. Whenever you give in to the enticings of Satan you are worse off.

[USU78]

BMD, on Nov 22 2005, 11:50 AM, said:

USU78 said:

"Wholly missing the point, BMD said:


QUOTE (BMD)
USU78, it was obviously the duty of the bishop to inform civil authorities, that the matter would be taken to the law of the land, both as common sense & as the D&C direct. /QUOTE


"Given the history of jurisdictional fights over the right of the state to compel the church and its agents to do x, y or z, I think it unwise to jumpt to such conclusions as "obviously." It wasn't obvious at all. Just because a legislature thinks something is a good idea doesn't mean it is"

Not obvious? Not absolutely crystalline in clarity that a known molestor of children be  reported??? That he be removed from the bedrooms of his children???

USU78 went on to say:

"Then, missing the point again, BMD said:


QUOTE (BMD)
Intuition is absolutely fine (and even helpful) in some matters, but in others, such as the present, there are established procedural guidelines. If calling them to you attention makes me a "bigot" in your eyes, then that's an acrimoniously-intended epithet i'll most happily accomodate myself to. /QUOTE


"Once again, you imply there are not presently procedural guidelines in place, notwithstanding you should have been disabused of the notion given the substance of prior posts. Do you hold that those posters were lying?"

Point out where this is "implicit", please, in your dogged effort to alienate other posters from my position on this matter. A little bit of "creative reading" on your part, possibly?

Then USU78 said:

"Then there's the implicit slam on gifts of the Spirit in your insistence that they constitute "intuition" and nothing more.

Nobody here has slammed your beliefs.

Please do not slam ours. "

Show how intuition ("learning from within") is a "slam", implicit or otherwise, on gifts of the Spirit. Clearly, if that bishop had been receptive to the Spirit's tutelage, things would not have deteriorated to the level they did.

Try as you might, USU78, you'll not, by misconstruing my words and intent, make an Anti-Mormon out of me.

ys,
BMD.

Let's crystalize this down to 2 points:

1.  You assert authority in an LDS Bishop to remove an abusive father from the home.  What is your basis for this assertion?

2.  You assert LDS "inspiration" is but "intuition," coming from within and not from without -- G-d's Spirit.  But you also claim this is not a criticism of LDS beliefs.  Defend yourself against my claim that you are dismissive of LDS doctrine that inspiration comes from without.

[MorningStar]

auteur55, on Nov 22 2005, 11:45 AM, said:

Well morningstarw we are certainly entering a time of unprecedented paranoia. Missionaries can no longer even go near someones child without breaking the mission rules ( the church has learned what can happen when a harmless missionary plays with someones children) an unbelievably strict and unfortunate rule. It wouldn't surprise me, if these lawsuits continue, to see the church instituting strict, white handbook type rules on members while engaged in church activities. It most likely will come to this. Heck even the word of wisdom was given to benefit "the weakest." We may all suffer similar consequences. The church is anything but the enemy here. The church does everything in its power to propagate values of chastity and virtue while condemning abuse in any form. The church had probably done more to prevent abuse then we know but you certaintly wouldn't hear about any of those situations. Sexual abuse is a huge problem that has nothing to do religions but with our society. Lets hope the church can institute future programs that will help us fight this horrible evil before it becomes an epidemic. Litigations only opens the doors for vultures rather than preventing a solution.

I am kind of paranoid about this stuff myself, but I try not to be too paranoid.  Just as the two teacher rule started, my son was entering Sunbeams.  I discovered a while later that his male teacher was the son of the man who sexually abused my 14-year-old aunt many years ago, so I was pretty dang happy that his wife was in there with him.  I'm not saying that he is like his dad, but if his dad was also abusing his children, then there is a greater chance that he would grow up to do the same thing.  My mom saw him at church one day and she had this horrified look on her face.  (I had decided not to tell her that he was in my ward.)  She said, "I know who he is.  He looks just like his mother."

It's sad that we have to have all these rules, but they're necessary.  

[KevinG]

The question here is culpability.  Who is to answer for the crime?

The person who committed it?  
(Father - Guilty of a terrible crime)  
The person or persons who neglected to report it
(Mother at first- perhaps guilty of neglect but predators are good at hiding their crimes and preventing their victims from being seen as credible)
(Bishop - perhaps guilty of neglecting to report but see above)
(Stake president who said he would - perhaps simply guilty of not knowing who to report too)
(The Church who even before 1994 had doctrines and policies that did not excuse individuals from civil redress and indeed make it a part of the repentance process? - perhaps they should have been made to train their volunteers better, which they did after 1994)

Who is going to get sued first?  The Church because they have deep pockets.

The Church has never had a policy of hiding crimes and misdeeds of it's members and if fact there are clear doctrines to the opposite.