BlueDreams Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Is this really the Gold Standard? Really? Maybe I hold a minority opinion but to me the gold standard would be putting the needs of the victim ahead of those of the abuser or the organization. Oddly this could also help victims as well. Avoiding testifying can also remove character witness for perpetrators, particularly in communities where it's considered a huge shock when accusations come out. It also is protective of children if their parents are using them as a bullying post in court. It's also to be avoided in terms of previous therapists giving info. We had a ton of training on this because parents will try to prove the other parent is somehow unfit and abuse of some sort is an easy method to do so. Therapists can be persuaded by the situation they see and if they know or prefer one parent over the other that can also lead to false assumptions about said parent. So, yeah, it's probably the gold standard...or at least a fairly good one. Both in protecting the church, abuse of power/office in the church (which is probably their big concern in this), and inevitably the children within our current judicial system. With luv, BD Edited February 2, 2016 by BlueDreams 3
mapman Posted February 2, 2016 Author Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Why don't you ask John Dehlin? He seems to be the one driving these talking points ... and clearly hoping to capitalise on any controversy he can dredge up or generate in the process. I don't pay much attention to John Dehlin, and don't particularly care what he thinks about this. I saw it mentioned on the Bloggernacle. Edited February 2, 2016 by mapman
mapman Posted February 2, 2016 Author Posted February 2, 2016 14 hours ago, Calm said: Actually this is a statement dating from at least Feb 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/*/newsroom.lds.org/article/effectiveness-of-church-approach-to-preventing-child-abuse https://web.archive.org/web/20150701000000*/http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/effectiveness-of-church-approach-to-preventing-child-abuse Thanks, Calm. It seems that people were misinformed then.
smac97 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 1 hour ago, ALarson said: I think that's a great idea. Our Bishop always has the door just slightly ajar when in his office with a sister or youth (but I think that many may worry others could hear what they are saying). I like what your Bishop does. I also know that more and more, parents are insisting on being present in interviews. I see that as both good and not so good, depending on the situation. I was just put in the Bishopric of our ward, and I may implement your suggestion when I interview youth. Thanks. Hmm. It was my understanding that this is standard practice. I guess not? -Smac
rpn Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Bishops needs to protect penitent-clergy privilege, and the confessional (whether the abused or the abuser). And in any case, most of what a bishop could say would be inadmissible hearsay, anyway. And it can be hard to be an effective shepherd when different members want different things and the bishop gets involved in things that aren't his shepherding duties. The handbook doesn't say that a bishop cannot testify. It says they need to talk with someone who understands not just the facts, but the law. Edited February 2, 2016 by rpn 1
mapman Posted February 2, 2016 Author Posted February 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: It was writing by a general authority Von Keetch http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20100527_keetch.html That's really interesting. I'm not familiar with Von G. Keetch. Why would he be writing official statements for the church?
ALarson Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Hmm. It was my understanding that this is standard practice. I guess not? -Smac It may be. I'll see what's included in any training I receive regarding this. I do think it's a great practice.
Duncan Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 46 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Is this really the Gold Standard? Really? Maybe I hold a minority opinion but to me the gold standard would be putting the needs of the victim ahead of those of the abuser or the organization. I am no lawyer but if the church isn't part of something why would they be involved in a legal matter? So, if some parent abused their kid the Church, as I read this, is saying the legal matter is between the parent and kid and the legal authorities. if the organization isn't involved then it shouldn't be involved. if it is involved like say some Bishop did something or some scout guy then the Church would not have that disclaimer, "it is not a party"
busybee Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, rpn said: Bishops have penitent-clergy privilege, which protects the confessional (whether the abused or the abuser). And in any case, most of what a bishop could say would be inadmissible hearsay, anyway. And it can be hard to be an effective shepherd when different members want different things and the bishop gets involved in things that aren't his shepherding duties. The handbook doesn't say that a bishop cannot testify. It says they need to talk with someone who understands not just the facts, but the law. My husband was involved in just such a case as a BP and he was contacted by civil authorities after years for his testimony. He was contacted by a member from the area presidency first, informing him that his testimony may be required, as the authorities had contacted them to locate him as we had moved countries since this had happened. He was given great support and guidance from the area office regarding this before meeting with the civil authorities. Thank goodness it was determined by the civil authorities that they had enough evidence without his testimony to obtain a conviction. Not that he was unwilling in any way to testify, it would have just meant travelling to a different country for court cases etc. I don't know if the whole penitent-clergy privilege thing applies in countries where they have mandated reporters ie, if you become aware of an instance of child abuse, you are obliged to report it to the authorities. 3
rchorse Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Hmm. It was my understanding that this is standard practice. I guess not? -Smac It is church policy. It's in Handbook 1, if I remember correctly. I don't have access to a copy right now to confirm, though.
Johnnie Cake Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 1 hour ago, mapman said: That's really interesting. I'm not familiar with Von G. Keetch. Why would he be writing official statements for the church? Von Gary Keetch has been a general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since April 2015. Wikipedia
smac97 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 43 minutes ago, rchorse said: It is church policy. It's in Handbook 1, if I remember correctly. I don't have access to a copy right now to confirm, though. I thought as much. I have a friend who thinks that the Church should cut narrow vertical windows into the doors of bishops' offices. The window would be narrow enough to allow passersby to see the bishop but not the person being interviewed. Many such interviews involve sensitive and difficult issues, such that many interviewees do not want every Tom, **** and Harry in the ward walking by the bishop's office and seeing them bawling their eyes out. And yet having a window with passersby being able to see the bishop at his desk would seem to substantially reduce the (in my view already pretty small, but not dismissible) risk of a bishop engaging in inappropriate conduct. Frankly, I think it's a very good idea. Now that I think about it, I will submit a suggestion about it to the stake president and ask him to pass it on up. Thanks, -Smac 2
Johnnie Cake Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Duncan said: I am no lawyer but if the church isn't part of something why would they be involved in a legal matter? So, if some parent abused their kid the Church, as I read this, is saying the legal matter is between the parent and kid and the legal authorities. if the organization isn't involved then it shouldn't be involved. if it is involved like say some Bishop did something or some scout guy then the Church would not have that disclaimer, "it is not a party" Once the church is aware of the abuse, through confession, hearsay or rumor...they are Involved and have a responsibility to the claimed abused to investigate. If the matter never rises to this level then I would agree with you, it doesn't involve them, but that all changes once the appropriate church leader becomes aware of the abuse...then they are involved. At this point the needs of the victim should over rule the needs of the abuser and the church
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 If I was ever abused or if my future children ever are, I'm going straight to the police. 1
smac97 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Just now, Johnnie Cake said: Once the church is aware of the abuse, through confession, hearsay or rumor...they are Involved and have a responsibility to the claimed abused to investigate. If the matter never rises to this level then I would agree with you, it doesn't involve them, but that all changes once the appropriate church leader becomes aware of the abuse...then they are involved. At this point the needs of the victim should over rule the needs of the abuser and the church Johnnie Cake is substantively correct. State laws vary on this issue, but it is my understanding that some states impose affirmative duties on ecclesiastical leaders to report allegations of abuse. The LDS Church maintains a "hotline" for bishops and stake presidents to use whenever they encounter such a situation. As I understand it, the hotline is staffed by attorneys with Kirton & McConkie, a Salt Lake law firm that handles a lot of the Church's legal work. K&M maintains detailed records about state-specific statutes pertaining to such issues. K&M also keeps track of developments in the law pertaining to "priest/penitent privilege," which can be another important consideration where allegations of abuse arise. The K&M lawyers make sure that bishops and stake presidents adhere to the law pertaining to both statutory disclosure requirements and "priest/penitent privilege" issues. These lawyers do not otherwise provide any instruction to bishops and stake presidents as to the ecclesiastical aspects of such situations. Thanks, -Smac 3
Johnnie Cake Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 And since we know that the church never bows to the pressures of social media...I'm very surprised that they have removed the News Release from the Church website...I wonder what promoted them to release and then remove it all within 24 hours...hmmmm http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/news-releases 1
mtomm Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 16 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: If I was ever abused or if my future children ever are, I'm going straight to the police. Exactly. And if it involves anyone church affiliated please go straight to the police. Do not go to church leaders first. 4
will227457 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 25 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: If I was ever abused or if my future children ever are, I'm going straight to the police. Funny you should say this, I know first hand of a case were this did not happen. First call was to the Bishop.
Popular Post smac97 Posted February 2, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 2, 2016 7 minutes ago, will227457 said: Funny you should say this, I know first hand of a case were this did not happen. First call was to the Bishop. And some people who run into such a horrible, world-shifting situation will call a friend first. Or post it on Facebook. Or call a lawyer. Or do nothing for a few days to report it to someone. Or never report it at all. There are all sorts of reactions that people can have in terrible situations like this. To sneer at Latter-day Saints because their first thought is to call a trusted spiritual adviser is neither helpful nor necessary. And as I have noted previously, bishops have access to a hotline where they can receive immediate and accurate legal advice as to how to proceed. So calling a bishop sure seems more sensible than calling some random buddy who has no clue what to do about the situation. Thanks, -Smac 6
Bernard Gui Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 42 minutes ago, smac97 said: I thought as much. I have a friend who thinks that the Church should cut narrow vertical windows into the doors of bishops' offices. The window would be narrow enough to allow passersby to see the bishop but not the person being interviewed. Many such interviews involve sensitive and difficult issues, such that many interviewees do not want every Tom, **** and Harry in the ward walking by the bishop's office and seeing them bawling their eyes out. And yet having a window with passersby being able to see the bishop at his desk would seem to substantially reduce the (in my view already pretty small, but not dismissible) risk of a bishop engaging in inappropriate conduct. Frankly, I think it's a very good idea. Now that I think about it, I will submit a suggestion about it to the stake president and ask him to pass it on up. Thanks, -Smac This was done by my school district....all teachers' offices, practice rooms, and some other specialized rooms were refitted with windowed doors for this very purpose. In a bishop's or stake president's office, there would have to be a way to protect the privacy of the other person, but I'm sure it could be done. Any steps like this can only be for the better.
Calm Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Quote Our ward's bishop always has a chaperone sitting just outside his door when he interviews youth or women. It seems to work well. Same here.
Calm Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: It was writing by a general authority Von Keetch http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20100527_keetch.html He became a GA in 2015 though. This was written apparently in his role as chief outside legal counsel for the Church: Quote In 2010 Keetch responded to Marci Hamilton's claims that the LDS response to child sexual abuse was on the same level of the Catholic Church. Keetch pointed out the help-line to aid bishops in dealing with abuse, and various other polices and actions the Church took on the matter.[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_G._Keetch#Education_and_legal_career Not suggesting the Church isn't reponsible for it. It is now an official statement imo since it is posted on the Church's website. Edited February 2, 2016 by Calm 1
Calm Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: I know that the church does not exist in a vacuum...so I'm asking myself what prompted this and why did the church PR department feel the need to release this yesterday They didn't release this yesterday. It has been online on the Church's website since Feb 2011 according to the Wayback archive machine (which had a hit for November 2015 and 40 others before that).
Calm Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Is this really the Gold Standard? Really? Is this the current handbook?
Calm Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: http://www.the-exponent.com/private-ecclesiastical-interviews-for-children-are-abusive-and-must-stop/ Pertinent quote in this article. "But digging deeper into the assertion that the LDS Church has the “gold standard” on preventing abuse, I have to stand in amazement at the chutzpah in stating so. Take into account one common practice: closed-door interviews between untrained, lay clergy and children as young as eight years old. In my LDS upbringing in Utah..." Using this anecdote to challenge current practices is faulty. It needs to specify current practices.
Recommended Posts