Child Abuse And The Mormon Response

Thinking · April 27, 2012

I don't see any problem with any kind of help line for bishops to use when faced with a difficult situation. How could that be a bad thing? A bad situation (for the abused) could become worse if the bishop handles it incorrectly. Although I don't believe the truth claims of the LDS Church anymore, the bishops I have known are sincere, caring men and I believe they would welcome another voice (especially one trained for such situations) if there was suspected abuse.

Grundelwalken · April 27, 2012

Having been a user of the hotline, I am grateful they were there. Circumstances that would require their counsel are difficult and frightening. In some cases they immediately take over (though you are still on the line and do your part) and report as required. In other cases, having examined the information given, they give counsel on how to proceed. In all cases they are available to guide those who are in need along a path that is legally and spiritually correct. MW

Edited April 27, 2012 by Grundelwalken

Calm · April 27, 2012

LDS_RM, do you have any evidence of users of the hotline who are of the opinion it was the wrong thing to use in the situation after having used it? That it did not result in the best help given to the abused that was available (at least to the best of the Church's ability to be involved)?

I would think those who have used the hotline are the best able to judge the appropriateness of it.

Edited April 27, 2012 by calmoriah

KevinG · April 27, 2012

So far the only alternative to the church hotline you are critical of is for local authorities to look up their situation on a web site and wing it! (and the web site wasn't even included until I pointed it out).

If you think 50 states times 24 variables for child welfare and abuse alone (someone do the exponential math) is simple then you my friend are an amazing intellect.

I am grateful that resources like this exist to help counselors and clergy. Just as I am grateful for the church hotline.

Now about that CFR. Please demonstrate from proof (not silly conjecture) the church hotline exists to protect the church (entity) over children's welfare?

...and as a bonus you can answer this question you conveniently skipped over in your last response: "If a church leader assumed the reporting requirement was simple in a state with laws protecting the confidentiality of confession and turned in a self confessed abuser improperly the abuser could go free!! How is that protecting the child?"

I await your wise and cogent response.

Edited April 27, 2012 by KevinG

LDS_RM · April 27, 2012

Kevin, what is so complex about the issue? Let's take Bishop Armando Rojas and Bishop Gordon Moon, had either Bishop been told during training "You are a mandatory reporter except when the abuser is confessing to you", both Bishops would have known they must report the abuse they were told about, but now both Bishops have been brought to Court one plead guilty, the other has yet to go to trial. It is only an aside that neither Bishop followed Church policy - ie neither called the hotline.

selek1 · April 27, 2012

Kevin, what is so complex about the issue? Let's take Bishop Armando Rojas and Bishop Gordon Moon, had either Bishop been told during training "You are a mandatory reporter except when the abuser is confessing to you", both Bishops would have known they must report the abuse they were told about, but now both Bishops have been brought to Court one plead guilty, the other has yet to go to trial. It is only an aside that neither Bishop followed Church policy - ie neither called the hotline.

First and foremost- trial-by-Internet, trial-by-media and guilt-by-accusation are lynch mob and police state tactics- and have no place here.

That you would resort to them is proof that you're grinding an axe rather than seeking reasoned discussion.

No one here knows all of the facts in either of those cases. As such, they are not an indictment of the hotline- or even of the men in question. That will come with the jury verdict.

You don't KNOW whether each man consulted the hotline. You don't KNOW that each man was materially derelict in reporting a crime.

That will be determined by the judge and jury- but as you yourself admit, it is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Your contention is that the existence and use of the Hotline is (somehow, some way, some where) an act of malfeasance- but you've never troubled to provide any evidence for that assertion.

Second, you've insisted that these men should have been told in a training session that they were mandatory reporters, thus avoiding all this trouble.

There are two fatal flaws with this argument.

First- you DON"T KNOW that they weren't so informed.

Second, had they consulted the Hotline, it would have told them EXACTLY THE SAME THING as the training session.

Whether these men had been told in a training session or consulted the Hotline, the outcome would have been precisely the same: accurate knowledge of their duties and responsibilities under the Law.

Your assertion that they would not be in trouble had this been addressed in a training session is utterly irrelevant to the existence of the Hotline as a resource.

------------------------------

You asserted that the Hotline existed only to protect the Church from liability- you have failed to provide any evidence for that charge.

You asserted that the use and existence of the Hotline is (somehow) an act of criminal dereliction. You have failed to provide any evidence for that charge.

You have implied that the Church is more interested in protecting itself from liability than in protecting the innocent. You have failed utterly to provide any evidence for that charge.

The simple fact of the matter is that LDS is not opposed to mandatory reporting where it is the law of the land. The hotline exists for a single purpose: to provide local ecclesiastical leaders with the best information available on the conduct which is legally and morally demanded of them.

Everything else LDS_RM has asserted has been a lie, a slander, or a red herring.

-------------------

Now it's time for the moderators to begin comparing IP addresses.

We had a troll not too long ago who was absolutely obsessed over Mandatory reporting and the Hotline. She, too, was a self-proclaimed Mormon who "just wanted the Church to do the right thing".

She was banned after making slanderous and hateful attacks against the Church identical in substance to LDS-RM's.

After thirty posts on the subject, LDS_RM has refused to provide any evidence for his/her claims and has simply vomited up the same empty, pro-forma complaints time and time again.

I strongly suspect we have a troll and a sockpuppet on our hands (pun intended).

Edited April 27, 2012 by selek1

Calm · April 27, 2012

It is only an aside that neither Bishop followed Church policy - ie neither called the hotline.

Really? How do you know that the same reason they didn't call the hotline wouldn't be the same reason they didn't call the police (assuming you are correct in your claim)?

Edited April 27, 2012 by calmoriah

selek1 · April 28, 2012

Really? How do you know that the same reason they didn't call the hotline wouldn't be the same reason they didn't call the police (assuming you are correct in your claim)?

He/she doesn't. He/she also doesn't know whether or not they actually called the Hotline.

The entire tangent is an attempt to distract from the failure to support his/her earlier claims.

As a personal favor, Cal (and the other LDS posters), I ask you not to follow LDS_RM to lead you down this particular rabbit hole.

He/she needs to provide real evidence and documentation to support the earlier accusations made- not bury them in an avalanche of irrelevancies.

Calm · April 28, 2012

He/she doesn't. He/she also doesn't know whether or not they actually called the Hotline.
The entire tangent is an attempt to distract from the failure to support his/her earlier claims.
As a personal favor, Cal (and the other LDS posters), I ask you not to follow LDS_RM to lead you down this particular rabbit hole.
He/she needs to provide real evidence and documentation to support the earlier accusations made- not bury them in an avalanche of irrelevancies.

Fine by me.

LDS_RM · April 28, 2012

Really? How do you know that the same reason they didn't call the hotline wouldn't be the same reason they didn't call the police (assuming you are correct in your claim)?

what is the claim I made that you wish for me to address

. I did not make a claim as why either person acted or did not act. I only claimed neither acted. However, according to Selek, the hotline.e people follow the law, and the law for Utah is that Clergy report abuse unless the abuser is confessing the abuse, and since both bishops were charged with failure to report, then they either did not call the hotline or they did not report as they were told.

selek1 · April 28, 2012

I did not make a claim as why either person acted or did not act. I only claimed neither acted. However, according to Selek, the hotline.e people follow the law, and the law for Utah is that Clergy report abuse unless the abuser is confessing the abuse, and since both bishops were charged with failure to report, then they either did not call the hotline or they did not report as they were told.

You asserted that the Hotline existed only to protect the Church from liability- you have failed to provide any evidence for that charge.

You asserted that the use and existence of the Hotline is (somehow) an act of criminal dereliction. You have failed to provide any evidence for that charge.

You have implied that the Church is more interested in protecting itself from liability than in protecting the innocent. You have failed utterly to provide any evidence for that charge.

Consider this a formal Call For References. According to board rules, you must either provide the evidence to support your allegations or withdraw them.

Provide the evidence necessary to support your allegations and then we can move on to your next hobby horse.

Edited April 28, 2012 by selek1

rpn · April 28, 2012

I think your error is in stating that the fact that persons are CHARGED, means they didn't do something. Arguably it means a prosecutor believes the bishop didn't do it, but that doesn't mean the bishop didn't do it (and also doesn't mean that the bishop SHOULD have done it --- in the one case the suspected abuse WAS reported by multiple people with more first hand knowledge than the bishop).

Bob Crockett · April 29, 2012

Many bishops have about one half hour of training before they start their first Sunday.

The hotline is the best thing going for any church.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Bob Crockett

LDS_RM · April 29, 2012

He/she doesn't. He/she also doesn't know whether or not they actually called the Hotline.
The entire tangent is an attempt to distract from the failure to support his/her earlier claims.
As a personal favor, Cal (and the other LDS posters), I ask you not to follow LDS_RM to lead you down this particular rabbit hole.
He/she needs to provide real evidence and documentation to support the earlier accusations made- not bury them in an avalanche of irrelevancies.

Selek, lets try a reasoning experiment based on your assumption. We will treat your assumption as absolute fact.

Your assumption:

"Where mandatory reporting is, in fact, the law of the land - that is precisely the action the Church will direct."

Now lets consider some facts.

1. Utah is a mandatory reporting State, even for Clergy, UNLESS AND ONLY IF, the Clergy learns of the abuse from the abuser.

2. Bishop Rojas and Bishop Moon learned of the alleged abuse from the victims.

3. The victims were not the abusers. (hopefully, you will agree that the victims where not the abusers)

4. Bishop Rojas entered a guilty plea or no contest for failing to report abuse. (Rojas enter a plea in abanence, this means either a guilty plea or no contest was entered by Rojas)

5. Bishop Moon has stated that he did not know he had a duty to report.

Lets consider those facts against your assumption. I can think of 3 possibilities.

1. Neither Bishop called the hotline. This is supported by Rojas plea of guilty or no contest and by Moon saying he did not know he had a duty to report.

2. Both Bishops called the hotline, and both ignored what they were instructed to do. This is supported by the plea entered by Rojas and supported by Moons statement that he did not know he had a duty to report.

3. Both Bishops called the hotline and both were informed not to report the abuse. This conclusion does not comport with your assumption. If the Bishops had called the hotline, they would have been informed to report the abuse immediately, as immediate reporting is the law in Utah when the knowledge of the abuse did not come from the abuser during a confession of the abuser to Clergy.

I am open to other conclusions. Can you think of a conclusion premised in your assumption that the Church follows the law?

NOTE: I am not suggesting that the LDS Church did not follow the law. I will state, that based on the facts, I do not believe either Bishop called the abuse Hotline. Utah is a mandatory reporting State, and the report must be made "immediately".

Edited April 29, 2012 by LDS_RM

ERayR · April 29, 2012

Selek, lets try a reasoning experiment based on your assumption. We will treat your assumption as absolute fact.
Your assumption:
"Where mandatory reporting is, in fact, the law of the land - that is precisely the action the Church will direct."
Now lets consider some facts.
1. Utah is a mandatory reporting State, even for Clergy, UNLESS AND ONLY IF, the Clergy learns of the abuse from the abuser.
2. Bishop Rojas and Bishop Moon learned of the alleged abuse from the victims.
3. The victims were not the abusers. (hopefully, you will agree that the victims where not the abusers)
4. Bishop Rojas entered a guilty plea or no contest for failing to report abuse. (Rojas enter a plea in abanence, this means either a guilty plea or no contest was entered by Rojas)
5. Bishop Moon has stated that he did not know he had a duty to report.
Lets consider those facts against your assumption. I can think of 3 possibilities.
1. Neither Bishop called the hotline. This is supported by Rojas plea of guilty or no contest and by Moon saying he did not know he had a duty to report.
2. Both Bishops called the hotline, and both ignored what they were instructed to do. This is supported by the plea entered by Rojas and supported by Moons statement that he did not know he had a duty to report.
3. Both Bishops called the hotline and both were informed not to report the abuse. This conclusion does not comport with your assumption. If the Bishops had called the hotline, they would have been informed to report the abuse immediately, as immediate reporting is the law in Utah when the knowledge of the abuse did not come from the abuser during a confession of the abuser to Clergy.
I am open to other conclusions. Can you think of a conclusion premised in your assumption that the Church follows the law?
NOTE: I am not suggesting that the LDS Church did not follow the law. I will state, that based on the facts, I do not believe either Bishop called the abuse Hotline. Utah is a mandatory reporting State, and the report must be made "immediately".

None of what you have written answers selek's CFR. I too am interested in what you come up with so please answer the CFR.

Seleks CFR

You asserted that the Hotline existed only to protect the Church from liability- you have failed to provide any evidence for that charge.

You asserted that the use and existence of the Hotline is (somehow) an act of criminal dereliction. You have failed to provide any evidence for that charge.

You have implied that the Church is more interested in protecting itself from liability than in protecting the innocent. You have failed utterly to provide any evidence for that charge.

Consider this a formal Call For References. According to board rules, you must either provide the evidence to support your allegations or withdraw them.

Provide the evidence necessary to support your allegations and then we can move on to your next hobby horse.

LDS_RM · April 30, 2012

I will address my statement, not a personal interpretation of my statement.

editpost 2: In my opinion calling a lawyer first, who is paid to protect an entity, is not acting in the best interest of children.

edit of post 4: In my opinion calling the lawyer first is little or nothing to do with protecting a Bishop; calling the lawyer first is about protecting an entity.

There now can any of you provide a conclusion based on seleks assumption that Church follows the law.

For the cases of Bishop Rojas and Bishop Moon, both in Utah, there is a mandatory duty to report immediately.

Bishop Rojas either plead guilty or no contest to failure to report, if he completes his part of the "bargain" his plea with be withdrawn (not relevant, but the result of probably not the most complete legal advice, but, according to the ATF, United States Supreme Court, and a few States he would be considered guilty even though the plea is withdrawn, due to the fact that inorder for him to get the bargain he recieved he had to plead guilty or no contest - it is a screwy situation.)

Bishop Moon states he did not know he had a duty to report.

So given that the Church follows the law for mandatory reporting, because that is the law in Utah, what is a conclusion that can be reached for both Rojas and Moon failing to report the abuse.

Can it reasonably be concluded that neither contacted the hotline?

Can it reasonably be concluded that one or both contacted the hotline and ignored the advice?

Can it reasonably be concluded that one or both contacted the hotline and either one or both were told not to report the abuse?

How does either option or an option of your own making comport with selek assumption that Church follows the law?

Edited April 30, 2012 by LDS_RM

LDS_RM · April 30, 2012