Church and child abuse

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I wish this had been available when I served as bishop. There were a couple of situations where I needed this kind of support. At the time, our state's laws and church policies were ambiguous regarding clergy responsibility to report to legal authorities when abuse was confessed or discovered in counseling. Fortunately, our stake president was an experienced attorney, so I was able to get legal advice from him. As a school teacher, however, I was obligated by law to report any indication of abuse. In one situation, the lines of bishop/teacher crossed, and it was a bit tricky to negotiate, but it eventually was sorted out. In another situation, I erred on the side of not reporting to legal authorities. While appropriate given the times, looking back I regret that very much. I am glad the church is taking this bull by the horns. Eliminating all abuse is not possible, but we can and should be more vigilant and aggressive in rooting it out. It is awful for everyone involved.

[Bernard Gui]

32 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 the second call was to.......?

[Calm]

 

1 hour 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.

This might be difficult if the only door to the office leads onto a hallway as then the angle might change enough to see the interviewee as one moved.  Perhaps an angled slot would work though.

Bishops at times need privacy though.  What if they wanted to take a moment for prayer before an interview?  It would be awkward to get up from the desk and move to another spot.  Perhaps the sense of security for interviewees, parents, etc. would be worth it though.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

It has been up there for several years!!!!  Ack.  Are you not reading my posts?  I am very insulted.

It was poorly written in some aspects imo and may even be out of date given it is 5 years old so I hope it is rewritten.  I would love information like Bluedreams offered added to it.

It is still on the website:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/effectiveness-of-church-approach-to-preventing-child-abuse

If it was on the news-release page, it might have been put on the news-releases list because of the recent announcement that iirc I linked to earlier (an abc news report).  It is possible that reporters and others were asking about how the Church operates in the case of child abuse, so they put it in a more noticeable spot.  If it was removed and not just wasn't there to begin with since it was an old page, it may be in a response to criticism.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Calm

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, 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

for sure about the needs of the abused but it doesn't mean that the Bishop or SP would have to testify in court, once the situation is reported to the authorities it's out of the leaders' hands and now another party is aware and can take action. 

[Calm]

Quote

 (The following article was published in 2010. Some bloggers have written that the Church “re-released” this article on February 1, 2016. The article was not intended to be re-released. Because of a technical error on the website, some past articles have been showing up with the current date. Because of that issue, some understandably saw this as a current release from the Church.)

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/effectiveness-of-church-approach-to-preventing-child-abuse

BTW, I have noticed that on one occasion looking for something myself...a past article posted as if recent, but had forgotten.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Calm

[VideoGameJunkie]

Here's a facebook page about child abuse in the church. https://www.facebook.com/MormonChildAbuses 

Warning: This link contains foul language and some anti-Mormonism.

[busybee]

1 hour 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

All chapels that I have been in recently have these small narrow windows in all doors in the building.

[stemelbow]

I'm turned off by the opening arrogance of the piece, my self.  I thik there is plenty of good in it, but if it was rewritten excluding many of the ridiculous statements like "In fact, no religious organization has done more" and it being the gold standard and downplaying, as it turns out any offenses that has come from members of the Church as representing the Church i'd be happier. 

[busybee]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

This might be difficult if the only door to the office leads onto a hallway as then the angle might change enough to see the interviewee as one moved.  Perhaps an angled slot would work though.

Bishops at times need privacy though.  What if they wanted to take a moment for prayer before an interview?  It would be awkward to get up from the desk and move to another spot.  Perhaps the sense of security for interviewees, parents, etc. would be worth it though.

Why would someone be bothered by being seen in the Bishop's office? One could be in there for any number of reasons.

I would much rather someone see me through a small window, than have someone sitting outside a slightly open door trying not to hear what is being said.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, busybee said:

Why would someone be bothered by being seen in the Bishop's office? One could be in there for any number of reasons.

I would much rather someone see me through a small window, than have someone sitting outside a slightly open door trying not to hear what is being said.

They may be crying or otherwise emotional.  Some are afraid of gossip (I think this is likely unwarranted except in a few cases where a ward has an extreme gossip addict).

Edited February 2, 2016 by Calm

[busybee]

Just now, Calm said:

They may be crying or otherwise emotional.

That's me whenever I'm in with the Bishop  I cry when I'm called to a calling. I cry when I'm released. I cry.

[busybee]

27 minutes ago, Duncan said:

for sure about the needs of the abused but it doesn't mean that the Bishop or SP would have to testify in court, once the situation is reported to the authorities it's out of the leaders' hands and now another party is aware and can take action. 

If the authorities require the Bishop to testify he would have to do so. Especially if he is involved in reporting the incident.

[Mystery Meat]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It was writing by a general authority Von Keetch

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20100527_keetch.html

He was not a general authority at the time he wrote it.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

He was not a general authority at the time he wrote it.

Either way it's a terrible piece.  The Church should either heavily edit it or take it out and rewrite something better. 

[mapman]

There's another article on the Newsroom entitled "Child Abuse" which seems to be a lot better in my opinion: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/child-abuse.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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).

My understanding is that it was a re release of a previous press lease from Feb 2011.  So yes it is a release from 2011 and yes it was re-released yesterday and removed today

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Is this the current handbook?

as far as I know it is from the current handbook...but policy's seem to change all the time...so unless its been recently removed it is currect

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It has been up there for several years!!!!  Ack.  Are you not reading my posts?  I am very insulted.

It was poorly written in some aspects imo and may even be out of date given it is 5 years old so I hope it is rewritten.  I would love information like Bluedreams offered added to it.

It is still on the website:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/effectiveness-of-church-approach-to-preventing-child-abuse

If it was on the news-release page, it might have been put on the news-releases list because of the recent announcement that iirc I linked to earlier (an abc news report).  It is possible that reporters and others were asking about how the Church operates in the case of child abuse, so they put it in a more noticeable spot.  If it was removed and not just wasn't there to begin with since it was an old page, it may be in a response to criticism.

I would never ignore you...but I do have a job and a life (hard to believe I know)

[Johnnie Cake]

39 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

He was not a general authority at the time he wrote it.

True thanks for pointing that out... But he was a GA when the church reposted the news release yesterday

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

True thanks for pointing that out... But he was a GA when the church reposted the news release yesterday

The re-posting was accidental:

Quote

(The following article was published in 2010. Some bloggers have written that the Church “re-released” this article on February 1, 2016. The article was not intended to be re-released. Because of a technical error on the website, some past articles have been showing up with the current date. Because of that issue, some understandably saw this as a current release from the Church.) 

You weren't the only one to jump to an uncharitable conclusion (Jane Reiss did too).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Thinking]

I've edited the article. The Church can have the edit free of charge.
 

Quote

Child abuse is a society-wide problem that affects people of all demographics. Tragically, every organization with families and children — religious or otherwise — faces the issue. That is particularly true of large and diverse organizations, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose very purpose is to welcome and minister to all people.

Although no one system is perfect and no single program will work with every organization, the Church has long had a highly effective approach for preventing and responding to abuse. The Church unequivocally denounces child abuse as an “insidious evil” and a “sin of the darkest hue.” Church leaders at the highest level have aggressively addressed the issue for years. Since 1976, more than 50 articles have appeared in Church publications condemning child abuse or educating members about it. As wrenching as the topic is, Church leaders have given sermons about it more than 30 times at the Church’s worldwide conferences. Preventing and responding to child abuse is the subject of a regular lesson taught during Sunday meetings. The Church has produced and distributed extensive training materials for local leaders and members alike. To this day Church leaders continue to speak publicly about abuse and forcefully address it. The Church’s official instructions for ecclesiastical leaders sum up the approach: “Abuse cannot be tolerated in any form.”

Although the Church has had almost no child abuse problems with its clergy, one is too many, so the Church will continue to find better ways to prevent it. The Church has a part-time lay clergy at the local level. Leaders of congregations are called bishops. Bishops are selected from the local membership to serve as uncompensated volunteers for about five years. Most have lived in the community and attended their congregations for many years and thus are well known to Church members before they are selected. Bishops are called by more senior ecclesiastical leaders, but before a bishop is installed all congregation members first vote to sustain his selection. The Church takes abuse allegations so seriously that even one member with a credible concern can derail the selection. And even after a bishop assumes office, any credible allegation of abuse against him would quickly result in the Church’s terminating the calling and selecting another bishop. This zero-tolerance approach risks problems with false allegations, but the Church has chosen to err on the side of caution.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints takes significant precautions to guard against abuse within its congregations. Official Church policy states: “All members, especially parents and leaders, are encouraged to be alert and diligent and do all they can to protect children and others against abuse and neglect.” Members are taught to be aware of the issue and to alert law enforcement and Church leaders if they believe a child is in danger. The Church fully supports compliance with child abuse reporting laws and regularly encourages members to report. The Church enforces a “two-deep” policy so that adult males who work with children or youth are never alone with a minor. The Church is currently installing windows in the classroom doors of thousands of its meetinghouses so that children are never out of sight.

Despite these precautions, child abuse sometimes occurs within a member family or between two members. When local clergy learn of alleged abuse, Church policy states that their first priority “is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse.” Dealing with alleged abuse can be very complex. In 1995 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints established a 24-hour help line and instructed its ecclesiastical leaders to call it immediately when they learn of abuse. The help line is staffed by licensed social workers with professional experience in dealing with abuse. They advise clergy about how best to protect the victim from further abuse, protect others from abuse, deal with the perpetrator and aid the healing process for victims. Child abuse is a crime with serious legal consequences.

Reporting abuse can raise difficult legal and personal issues. State reporting laws vary greatly. A broad majority of states exempt confidential communications with clergy from reporting duties. Why? Public policy makers have concluded that confidentiality helps victims and perpetrators alike come forward and get help. A confidential confession to a clergyperson often breaks the cycle of abuse and is the first step in a process that leads to voluntary reporting by the perpetrator, victim or others.

Abuse victims themselves often demand confidentiality. Many victims who reveal tragic abuse experiences to clergy — some of which may have occurred decades earlier — do not want to be traumatized again by a criminal investigation and public prosecution. In navigating these complex and wrenching situations, Church clergy are instructed to comply with the law. The Church routinely reports child abuse to law enforcement. And even where reporting is not mandatory, the Church searches for ways to get abuse reported while still respecting the victim’s desire for privacy.

The Church disfellowships or excommunicates ordinary members for child abuse. Excommunication terminates a person’s membership in the Church, which is the harshest ecclesiastical punishment possible. Its purpose is to induce the person to stop his crimes and seek forgiveness from God, to protect other Church members and to demonstrate institutional condemnation of such evil conduct. After many years, perpetrators who truly change their lives can be readmitted to Church membership, but their membership record is permanently marked with an annotation that precludes them from ever again associating with the Church’s children or youth.

Over the years the Church has continually looked to improve its  policies and practices. The help line, for example, has been highly successful since its creation over 15 years ago. The Church has a primary goal to protect children. Church leaders and members treasure the innocence of children and take seriously Jesus Christ’s severe condemnation of anyone who harms a child. “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Thinking

[Johnnie Cake]

Move along folks...nothing to see here...these are not the droids you are looking for...  Fair enough I'll give them credit for owning their mistake...but the cynic in me has to wonder still... Really? a technical error on the website? 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

(The following article was published in 2010. Some bloggers have written that the Church “re-released” this article on February 1, 2016. The article was not intended to be re-released. Because of a technical error on the website, some past articles have been showing up with the current date. Because of that issue, some understandably saw this as a current release from the Church.) 

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Move along folks...nothing to see here...these are not the droids you are looking for...

Yeah, this is the problem with faultfinders: they always manage to succeed at it.

Yuck.

-Smac

[will227457]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

In a normal world when people are victims or family members are victims the police should be called immediately....in this case that I know of the bishop didn't advise the victims mother to call the police until after he spoke with his 1st counsler (who happens to be a cop). Guess what he said.....