Libs Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 May I add a couple things here? I know I am an outsider, at this point (so, I often hesitate to offer an opinion), but I still pay attention to things that are going on in the church, and I paid particular attention to Kate Kelly's case, because I consider myself a feminist and admired her courage and conviction. I think there is a big difference between people who "know" they have done something wrong (adultery, child abuse, spousal abuse,etc), and those (like Kate and John) who feel they are being "disciplined" for expressing their sincerely held beliefs. It is much more likely that a person is going to feel a court is unfair and unloving, when they are being disciplined for something they don't believe was wrong. That has been the case for a number of people who have been excommunicated by the church. It can look (and feel) like the church is the "thought police" and one must conform, or at the very least, keep quiet. I can see holding courts on people who have been abusive and break civil law...but, it is much more difficult for me to see the "good" in courts that discipline someone for their "beliefs". That's my opinion/observation...and is worth what you paid for it. 1
Yirgacheffe Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Interestingly, teachers are also been taught to soften their words when they are disciplining their students. In britain teachers cannot say to their students that hey are naughty but they can say that they are behaving inappropriately. In other words, words must be softer in meaning and context. I am sure that it is the same in America. In fact, I am sure that we have many young people who may have never experienced discipline in their lives because the parents may consider it emotional abuse. Here are some advice on how to discipline a child these days: How can I discipline positively? American Humane encourages parents and other caregivers to use techniques that constitute a positive and appropriate discipline of children, such as:Discipline with loveListen and communicateFocus on the behavior, not the childRespond immediatelyRelate the discipline to the offending behavior in duration and severityBe realisticRemain calmBe fairDo not harm or injureSet boundariesMake it a learning opportunityBe consistentBe creativeDevelop rules and expectations in advanceUse timeoutsReward or praise desirable behaviorsModel desired behaviorEncourage the child’s cooperation and understandingDevelop behavioral contracts and incentive chartshttp://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/child-discipline.html Seems rather complicated these days. And some people wonder why many children are becoming narcissists? So, it should be no surprise if those coming up into adulthood or who have experienced such discipline as above may find a church disciplinary court overbearing and emotionally abusive. Back in my day, it was just a good scolding with the voice. And it seemed to do the trick.My parents were born between 1925 and 1935 and for the most part these are things that they did with me and my brothers and sisters. Discipline with love (not exactly sure what this means but I never got the idea that my parents loved me less while they were disciplining me, would it be better to discipline with hate?)Listen and communicate (they listened to me and communicated to me my poor reasoning for bad behavior)Focus on the behavior, not the child (they always named the behavior not me, that was a stupid thing to do, that was mean, the unsaid implication was that I was not stupid or mean and my behavior should reflect that fact)Respond immediately (always responded immediately even in public my behavior was quietly pointed out and reserved for later discussion)Relate the discipline to the offending behavior in duration and severity (they always did this, including any apologies they deemed necessary)Be realistic (they were quite realistic, age appropriate, recidivism and so forth)Remain calm (really is this a bad thing, my parents were calm, even when they were obviously angered by the behavior)Be fair ( they were generally fair, though sometimes they were blatantly unfair, saying "well life isn't fair")Do not harm or injure (never harmed or injured by my parents, do you think it is good to harm or injure a children?)Set boundaries (don't know what this means)Make it a learning opportunity (my parents never let our bad behavior go without talking, sometimes in great detail about just why it was bad, wrong, inconsiderate, inappropriate, rude, unkind, thoughtless and so onBe consistent ( yes they were consistent, if it was wrong in March it was still wrong in October, if my oldest sibling got in trouble for it so did I no matter how many children or times it occurred.)Be creative (creative is just wicked when it comes to punishing misbehaving children, they had endless ideas on punishment and like that Kevin Bacon game could tie it back to my behavior in 5 moves.)Develop rules and expectations in advance ( I seem to remember a more on the fly rule development aside from the basic do as you are told, if you were told to do something you did it it if you were told not to do something you didn't do it.)Use timeouts ( does go to your room and think about what you did, said, didn't do, count?)Reward or praise desirable behaviors ( my parents did praise us when we did "good" things or did something well)Model desired behavior ( I have no idea why this would be a bad thing and yes I think my parents tried to be good examples)Encourage the child’s cooperation and understanding (My parents expected my cooperation and did spend some time explaining why so I would understand)Develop behavioral contracts and incentive charts (no nothing even remotely like this growing up, proper behavior wasn't something we agreed to we just better do it, without incentives.) I really don't see what is so wrong with this list.
Mystery Meat Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 May I add a couple things here? I know I am an outsider, at this point (so, I often hesitate to offer an opinion), but I still pay attention to things that are going on in the church, and I paid particular attention to Kate Kelly's case, because I consider myself a feminist and admired her courage and conviction. I think there is a big difference between people who "know" they have done something wrong (adultery, child abuse, spousal abuse,etc), and those (like Kate and John) who feel they are being "disciplined" for expressing their sincerely held beliefs. It is much more likely that a person is going to feel a court is unfair and unloving, when they are being disciplined for something they don't believe was wrong. That has been the case for a number of people who have been excommunicated by the church. It can look (and feel) like the church is the "thought police" and one must conform, or at the very least, keep quiet. I can see holding courts on people who have been abusive and break civil law...but, it is much more difficult for me to see the "good" in courts that discipline someone for their "beliefs". That's my opinion/observation...and is worth what you paid for it. The only problem is that KK wasn't excommunicated for her sincerely held beliefs. 2
Libs Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 The only problem is that KK wasn't excommunicated for her sincerely held beliefs. I think she was, basically. Yes, she acted on those beliefs, but don't we all? I think the main thing that brought on the excommunication was standing in line to ask for permission to enter the priesthood session at conference. I don't see what was so terrible about that.
Libs Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 But, really, my main point was that you have to first convince someone that they were wrong, before you can make them feel a need for repentance.
Calm Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 I think she was, basically. Yes, she acted on those beliefs, but don't we all? I think the main thing that brought on the excommunication was standing in line to ask for permission to enter the priesthood session at conference. I don't see what was so terrible about that.I highly doubt that was it, I think it was the discussions. the protest was just a visual display of wanting something they didn't have, while the discussions were meant to be used to convert people to the cause by sharing with them what they felt were reasons and doctrine that promoted their view…AND it represented the leadership in much, harsher ways than just having them say no to going into an all men's meeting (see the first lesson's attention getter Patriarchy Bingo). Worst things had been said on blogs and stuff, but here it was in a packet designed to be passed around to "educate" others on the issues. 2
why me Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) My parents were born between 1925 and 1935 and for the most part these are things that they did with me and my brothers and sisters. Discipline with love (not exactly sure what this means but I never got the idea that my parents loved me less while they were disciplining me, would it be better to discipline with hate?)Listen and communicate (they listened to me and communicated to me my poor reasoning for bad behavior)Focus on the behavior, not the child (they always named the behavior not me, that was a stupid thing to do, that was mean, the unsaid implication was that I was not stupid or mean and my behavior should reflect that fact)Respond immediately (always responded immediately even in public my behavior was quietly pointed out and reserved for later discussion)Relate the discipline to the offending behavior in duration and severity (they always did this, including any apologies they deemed necessary)Be realistic (they were quite realistic, age appropriate, recidivism and so forth)Remain calm (really is this a bad thing, my parents were calm, even when they were obviously angered by the behavior)Be fair ( they were generally fair, though sometimes they were blatantly unfair, saying "well life isn't fair")Do not harm or injure (never harmed or injured by my parents, do you think it is good to harm or injure a children?)Set boundaries (don't know what this means)Make it a learning opportunity (my parents never let our bad behavior go without talking, sometimes in great detail about just why it was bad, wrong, inconsiderate, inappropriate, rude, unkind, thoughtless and so onBe consistent ( yes they were consistent, if it was wrong in March it was still wrong in October, if my oldest sibling got in trouble for it so did I no matter how many children or times it occurred.)Be creative (creative is just wicked when it comes to punishing misbehaving children, they had endless ideas on punishment and like that Kevin Bacon game could tie it back to my behavior in 5 moves.)Develop rules and expectations in advance ( I seem to remember a more on the fly rule development aside from the basic do as you are told, if you were told to do something you did it it if you were told not to do something you didn't do it.)Use timeouts ( does go to your room and think about what you did, said, didn't do, count?)Reward or praise desirable behaviors ( my parents did praise us when we did "good" things or did something well)Model desired behavior ( I have no idea why this would be a bad thing and yes I think my parents tried to be good examples)Encourage the child’s cooperation and understanding (My parents expected my cooperation and did spend some time explaining why so I would understand)Develop behavioral contracts and incentive charts (no nothing even remotely like this growing up, proper behavior wasn't something we agreed to we just better do it, without incentives.) I really don't see what is so wrong with this list.Perhaps there isn't anything wrong with it. However the problem that societies have is in the level of narcissism and entitlement. It has in a way become a 'me' society and a society where many children feel entititled to behave and do what they feel. But this also affects adults too. So, when a person enters a court and sees that they will not be entitled to live the life they chose without consequence they may feel emotionally abused. Related: Is your child or teen acting spoiled? How to turn it around.There are a few reasons why kids are behaving in a more entitled way these days: parents are working harder and longer than before, and are generally more stressed out. When you are exhausted and overwhelmed, it can be easier to give in than to fight with your kids. Along with that, it’s natural to want our kids to have what we didn’t have when we were growing up, and it feels good to give them things when we can. On top of all of that, modern technology has changed the pace of our expectations. Texting, email, and the Internet have made everything move at warp speed. Everything happens with the tap of a finger. Let’s face it, we’re not accustomed to waiting for things anymore—and neither are our kids. It’s a very different world with a different set of expectations about the pace of gratification, and parents don’t always know how to cope.http://www.empoweringparents.com/narcissistic-children-and-teens-does-your-child-act-entitled.php#ixzz36PcyDtpE I think that there are more and more people who feel entitltled to do what they please without consequence. And there are more and more people who are not even concerned with the consequence. So, how would these people feel about discipline and sacrifice and being told what they did was wrong and they will be excommunicated? Excommunication or disfellowshipment is not just a me thing but a we thing. It is to safeguard the lds community, which is the ward. If there is no consequence, many others would be tempted to act out the life of the person who was not excommunicated and the moral authority of the ward would be affected. I believe that kelly was excommunicated because of her attempted missionary lessons to convert others to her cause. It was not just about her but about the other members who may be influenced by her behavior. Edited July 3, 2014 by why me
Libs Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 I highly doubt that was it, I think it was the discussions. the protest was just a visual display of wanting something they didn't have, while the discussions were meant to be used to convert people to the cause by sharing with them what they felt were reasons and doctrine that promoted their view…AND it represented the leadership in much, harsher ways than just having them say no to going into an all men's meeting (see the first lesson's attention getter Patriarchy Bingo). Worst things had been said on blogs and stuff, but here it was in a packet designed to be passed around to "educate" others on the issues. Maybe. I wasn't aware that the discussions were completely ready, let alone distributed, yet. I haven't read them. Kate, herself, seems to believe it had more to do with the public (so-called) demonstrations, during conference, as she was expressly told not to do it, the second time.
Libs Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Also, thought it was quite sad that her parents had their Temple recommends pulled for supporting their daughter. I guess a lot of people have had their recommends pulled and have been threatened with discipline, if they do not cease and desist from supporting OW. 1
Calm Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) If you read her mom's comments, it wasn't for supporting their daughter. Her mom holds the same position that Kate did and possibly did before OW ever appeared. She would have been involved with OW even if her daughter wasn't. From the way it is written, it sounds like the same thing would have gone for the dad. Edited July 3, 2014 by calmoriah 1
Tacenda Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 Ok, what is the process if someone is caught sexually abusing a minor and ex'd, then returns after being re-baptized, are they allowed to work with children in the church? Is their slate wiped clean after being baptized? I just finished a book about the CJCLDS being sued by a young man and his family because the bishop knew the perpetrator was a child molester yet didn't say anything when the mother took him in because she wanted to help him out since he didn't have any family and was elderly. This man also abused several other boys while serving as a SS teacher/scout leader.Please tell me the church has been more proactive in preventing this situation to occur ever again.
smac97 Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 Ok, what is the process if someone is caught sexually abusing a minor and ex'd, then returns after being re-baptized, are they allowed to work with children in the church? No. Such a person's membership record is permanently annotated. Is their slate wiped clean after being baptized? Spiritually, a person can have their "slate wiped clean." That is a matter for God to determine. However, the Church will take a precautionary stance for the remainder of that person's mortal probation. I just finished a book about the CJCLDS being sued by a young man and his family because the bishop knew the perpetrator was a child molester yet didn't say anything when the mother took him in because she wanted to help him out since he didn't have any family and was elderly. This man also abused several other boys while serving as a SS teacher/scout leader. Please tell me the church has been more proactive in preventing this situation to occur ever again. What is the book? Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 (edited) Ok, what is the process if someone is caught sexually abusing a minor and ex'd, then returns after being re-baptized, are they allowed to work with children in the church? Is their slate wiped clean after being baptized? I just finished a book about the CJCLDS being sued by a young man and his family because the bishop knew the perpetrator was a child molester yet didn't say anything when the mother took him in because she wanted to help him out since he didn't have any family and was elderly. This man also abused several other boys while serving as a SS teacher/scout leader.Please tell me the church has been more proactive in preventing this situation to occur ever again.Who is the author?If it is the case I am thinking of the bishop said he wouldn't if it were him but it was up to the mom and the mom put the man in her son's room. Can't remember it it was debatable when the bishop knew. And my memory says he was also paying rent.The Church follows the law for reporting and files are marked not to work with children Edited July 5, 2014 by calmoriah
Duncan Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 (edited) Ok, what is the process if someone is caught sexually abusing a minor and ex'd, then returns after being re-baptized, are they allowed to work with children in the church? Is their slate wiped clean after being baptized?I just finished a book about the CJCLDS being sued by a young man and his family because the bishop knew the perpetrator was a child molester yet didn't say anything when the mother took him in because she wanted to help him out since he didn't have any family and was elderly. This man also abused several other boys while serving as a SS teacher/scout leader.Please tell me the church has been more proactive in preventing this situation to occur ever again. without going into detail but I have been in this situation but without a lawsuit, not the perp. but the recipient......and I was kept updated on the other person's progress-my Bishop worked in healthcare so he knew all the laws and whatnot and he was good about everything Edited July 5, 2014 by Duncan
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) without going into detail but I have been in this situation but without a lawsuit, not the perp. but the recipient......and I was kept updated on the other person's progress-my Bishop worked in healthcare so he knew all the laws and whatnot and he was good about everything I'm so sorry Duncan that that happened. From the book it sounds like there is a hotline for bishops to call, but it is a church hotline I believe. Is this to avert bad publicity? I don't mean to make it sound sinister, but I sure hope the right authorities are notified. Who is the author?If it is the case I am thinking of the bishop said he wouldn't if it were him but it was up to the mom and the mom put the man in her son's room. Can't remember it it was debatable when the bishop knew. And my memory says he was also paying rent.The Church follows the law for reporting and files are marked not to work with childrenhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/09/abuse-cases-free-exercise_n_874515.html Author was Lisa Davis. Above is an article from the Huffington Post, one of the many reasons this book was hard to read was because there was an older man that the neighbor kids and I would go to, to get candy after school. I use to say I was a boy and then hightail it out of there. But remember he exposed himself and tried to touch one of the neighbor girls, I still feel guilt that I ran away and didn't get her out of there, or tell anyone. I think we really need to be proactive in the church with child abuse and make it one of the top sins in the church. I hope the church will concentrate on this crime, it's rampant and can forever be passed onto other generations. The lives of these boys were destroyed. Edited July 6, 2014 by Tacenda
Duncan Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 I'm so sorry Duncan that that happened. From the book it sounds like there is a hotline for bishops to call, but it is a church hotline I believe. Is this to avert bad publicity? I don't mean to make it sound sinister, but I sure hope the right authorities are notified. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/09/abuse-cases-free-exercise_n_874515.html Author was Lisa Davis. Above is an article from the Huffington Post, one of the many reasons this book was hard to read was because there was an older man that the neighbor kids and I would go to, to get candy after school. I use to say I was a boy and then hightail it out of there. But remember he exposed himself and tried to touch one of the neighbor girls, I still feel guilt that I ran away and didn't get her out of there, or tell anyone. I think we really need to be proactive in the church with child abuse and make it one of the top sins in the church. I hope the church will concentrate on this crime, it's rampant and can forever be passed onto other generations. The lives of these boys were destroyed. ah, this was long before hotlines but it involved a fellow member, I think everyone wants things to be on the up and up legal wise and make sure things are done right so help can be provided to the people involved.
Calm Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) Tac,There is a hotline that provides bishops with all the legal advice of how their local area laws require them to act as well as what the Church requires. There are quite a number of variations and if a bishop makes a misstep it might cause a problem for prosecuting the abuser legally.Why wouldn't it be a church operated hotline? Given the international nature of the Church, it allows for one number to be given out with access to all the legal variations (I assume it functions by hooking up a bishop with the Church's lawyers for each state/province or country. It could be very confusing trying to keep up in printed material (and not all bishops have easy access to the Internet at all times) all the different phone numbers plus they would still need to call a church hotline as well in order to confirm what the process should be for the Church. And the Church may have to change its process due to local laws and that might cause confusion if leaders learned one process in a former location, moved and weren't aware of different laws.I think having one number they can emphasize calling no matter what will cut down on the number of bishops who think they can handle it on their own especially as time goes on and the procedure becomes better known.In my view, it has been taught for a long, long time child abuse is a horrible sin, one of the worse. What has given you the impression it is not seen so grievously? add-on: From the Church Newsroom: The Church has zero tolerance for abuse of any kind, including child abuse, spousal abuse, sexual abuse or child pornography, and anyone engaged in these practices would rightly face both criminal prosecution and Church discipline. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-discipline Edited July 6, 2014 by calmoriah 2
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Tac,There is a hotline that provides bishops with all the legal advice of how their local area laws require them to act as well as what the Church requires. There are quite a number of variations and if a bishop makes a misstep it might cause a problem for prosecuting the abuser legally.Why wouldn't it be a church operated hotline? Given the international nature of the Church, it allows for one number to be given out with access to all the legal variations (I assume it functions by hooking up a bishop with the Church's lawyers for each state/province or country. It could be very confusing trying to keep up in printed material (and not all bishops have easy access to the Internet at all times) all the different phone numbers plus they would still need to call a church hotline as well in order to confirm what the process should be for the Church. And the Church may have to change its process due to local laws and that might cause confusion if leaders learned one process in a former location, moved and weren't aware of different laws.I think having one number they can emphasize calling no matter what will cut down on the number of bishops who think they can handle it on their own especially as time goes on and the procedure becomes better known.In my view, it has been taught for a long, long time child abuse is a horrible sin, one of the worse. What has given you the impression it is not seen so grievously?add-on: From the Church Newsroom:The Church has zero tolerance for abuse of any kind, including child abuse, spousal abuse, sexual abuse or child pornography, and anyone engaged in these practices would rightly face both criminal prosecution and Church discipline.http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-disciplineYes, one number to call worldwide is a good idea as long as the offender is brought to justice and hopefully put away. But I can imagine that there aren't enough jails for that in the world. Hopefully the message is continuing from the church and it entails that the abuse is next to murder, IMO. It should be grouped with the top 3 or 4 sins. Why aren't more excommunicated for it? In every case it should be that way.
Pahoran Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Yes, one number to call worldwide is a good idea as long as the offender is brought to justice and hopefully put away. But I can imagine that there aren't enough jails for that in the world. Hopefully the message is continuing from the church and it entails that the abuse is next to murder, IMO. It should be grouped with the top 3 or 4 sins. Why aren't more excommunicated for it? In every case it should be that way. And how do you know how many people are or are not excommunicated for it? The Church doesn't ordinarily publicise excommunications. The only way most excommunications become public knowledge is when the excommunicated people exploit them for their own advantage. Regards, Pahoran
Pahoran Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Ok, what is the process if someone is caught sexually abusing a minor and ex'd, then returns after being re-baptized, are they allowed to work with children in the church? Is their slate wiped clean after being baptized? I just finished a book about the CJCLDS being sued by a young man and his family because the bishop knew the perpetrator was a child molester yet didn't say anything when the mother took him in because she wanted to help him out since he didn't have any family and was elderly. This man also abused several other boys while serving as a SS teacher/scout leader. No you haven't. You've just finished reading a book about a woman who asked her bishop's advice about taking an old stranger into her house. The bishop advised against it. She chose to disregard his advice, took the old guy in and put him in her son's bed. His BED. The bishop did NOT know the old guy's history -- his offences took place in another state, and this was before record annotation. But when the inevitable happened, this (ahem) "lady" found a suitably venal ambulance-chaser and went after the nearest deep pockets she could find. Let's just keep our facts straight, shall we? Regards, Pahoran
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) No you haven't.You've just finished reading a book about a woman who asked her bishop's advice about taking an old stranger into her house. The bishop advised against it.She chose to disregard his advice, took the old guy in and put him in her son's bed.His BED.The bishop did NOT know the old guy's history -- his offences took place in another state, and this was before record annotation.But when the inevitable happened, this (ahem) "lady" found a suitably venal ambulance-chaser and went after the nearest deep pockets she could find.Let's just keep our facts straight, shall we?Regards,PahoranIn the book and court docs, he admits he knew about this guy molesting boys. I guess he thought he had to keep it confidential. Oregon is where he abused several boys and according to the book 3 different leaders at different times knew but didn't say anything, I specifically remember it being on pg. 309, I believe. CFR that the bishop didn't know about the abuse while advising her against taking the guy into their home. I admit she was probably the most naive mother out there, and she'll have to live with putting her son in danger. ETA: CFR that it's annotated now in records and (my add in) they can't be around children in callings. I'd sure like to know if it's in the church handbook. Because I've heard it's still going on in various wards, the perpetrators not being disciplined to the fullest. My, even the admitted gays have the annotation on their record, with zero evidence of abuse. Edited July 6, 2014 by Tacenda
Calm Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Do you have a link to the court doc where the bishop says this himself and it is not just claimed by someone else? Iirc the case never went to actual trial, settled out of court so the bishop wouldn't have testified, but there might be an affidavit from him....I assume that would be called a court doc. And the three others...who is stating this and was it proven or just claimed?
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) Do you have a link to the court doc where the bishop says this himself and it is not just claimed by someone else? Iirc the case never went to actual trial, settled out of court so the bishop wouldn't have testified, but there might be an affidavit from him....I assume that would be called a court doc. And the three others...who is stating this and was it proven or just claimed?From the book it mentions that Franklin Curtis moved to Grand Rapids for a short time and called to a position in the ward. A woman felt inspired that he shouldn't have been sustained during a SM and later went to the Stake President to voice her concern. The SP told her that Curtis had a red flag in his records. I guess I had read through the book so fast that I assumed that Jeremiah Scott's bishop had come forth with it that he knew of the abuse, but instead I guess it was just assumed that he knew since the record was flagged. I'd have to re-read the book to make sure though. I know the author took her information from court documents or depositions, so that is why I stated confidently that it was in court docs. ETA: Here is a MS podcast http://mormonstories.org/294-childhood-sexual-abuse-with-dr-barbara-morrell/ with .... c/p from the intro.... Dr. Barbara Morrell — a licensed psychologist working in the Brigham Young University Counseling and Psychological Services. She divides her time between doing psychotherapy and coordinating the Stress Management and Biofeedback Services. Her interest in and experience with treating childhood sexual abuse began during her masters program in 1985 working as a volunteer counselor with AMACs (Adults Molested as Children). She received her Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from BYU in 1997 and wrote her dissertation on adult men who had been sexually abused as children. Barbara began working in the BYU Counseling Center in 1996 and for many years was the sexual assault liaison between the center and the University Police, county law enforcement, and other agencies. Students who had been sexually assaulted were referred directly to her for immediate help and ongoing therapy. Dr. Morrell has served two LDS missions, one to Taiwan at the normal missionary age, and 10 years later she took a leave of absence from her work as a high school counselor for a second mission to Geneva Switzerland. She loves teaching in the Church and loved working for two years as a temple worker in the Provo temple. Below is one of the replies from the podcast and is quite telling. I'm not trying to be negative toward the church, but just want change where needed. ms listenerMarch 23, 2012 at 11:28 amAgree…thanks for doing a podcast on this topic. As someone who suffered long term incest as a child, many things Dr. Morrell said hit home. I wish the LDS church would take more seriously training leadership on this topic. I’m glad to hear she has many positive experiences coming from Bishops. I’m wondering if this is in part due to being located in Utah, where information is more readily available to Church leadership? I realize my story may be extreme, but I don’t believe it is entirely unique. My family dealt with Priesthood leadership across 5 different states spanning three decades. The leaders only dealt with the spiritual repentance aspect of the situation, no one in my family received counseling, and most upsetting is that not one leader reported the incidents to the authorities. My entire family left the church (including my sister, who was also molested) and though I remain, I struggle. My father remarried and started another family, and his last child turns 18 this summer. He was excommunicated for one of many affairs he had (not his incest) and several years ago he was re-baptized. None of the reported incest was on his church membership records, nor did he think to confess over 16 years of incest to his Bishop when he was in the process of re-baptism, so he was promptly given a calling in primary. I went to my local leadership in all sincerity because I thought it was my ethical responsibility to let them know that my father should not be working with children. At that time, (just 5 or 6 years ago) I was in my mid thirties, married in the temple, was a current temple recommend holder, had my own children,served diligently in my callings and I was treated very poorly by my PH leadership. I was told that I needed to work on letting the past go (this is the first time that I had ever spoken to anyone in my ward about this), and was treated as though I had only come forward to satisfy a personal vendetta against my father. I was told by my father’s bishop, “we believe these things in the past have been handled” and “these things have been exaggerated”(if they had been handled then they should be on his church record and regarding the exaggerated comment–I was dumbfounded to be called a liar). When I said that this is not about my personal feelings, but about protecting other children from being victims and I did not want to be held accountable for not speaking up, the response was, “well, if that is really how you feel” (what was that supposed to mean?). My bishop also told me that if I didn’t let this go that I would be hurting my children by passing it down to them (nice guilt added upon what was already there). I felt that this Church, to whom I had been faithful to my entire life, was again choosing believe a man who had a proven record of low values over me.As Dr. Morrell shared, there can be so much good that PH leaders can give to an abuse victim, but there can also be so much hurt. It was soon after this that on my own I sought counseling to deal with my past. I found a wonderful counselor, and I found that I had as many issues to deal with regarding the Church as I did with my father. With an institution that is so heavily patriarchal, they need to be extra careful in how they deal with the women and children of the institution. And, there is more to it than saying women should be put on a pedestal. As an addendum to my story. About a year ago my bishop called one evening and spoke to my husband. He wanted to pass a message along to me. My father’s stake president (and his former bishop) had just called him. He wanted my bishop to know that he now believes there was some truth to the things that I was saying and they have marked his record and are going to hold a disciplinary counsel. Wow. That only took about 5 years. Edited July 6, 2014 by Tacenda
Calm Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 So the claims were reports and not actual documents...the reports may or may not be accurate.
mfbukowski Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 No. Such a person's membership record is permanently annotated.Spiritually, a person can have their "slate wiped clean." That is a matter for God to determine. However, the Church will take a precautionary stance for the remainder of that person's mortal probation.What is the book?Thanks,-SmacFor the record, I agree that this is correct.
Recommended Posts