Calm Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 18 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said: Why would a stake president push for a mission for a man who molested a 6 year old girl, that is so seriously beyond belief it is just sick. I don't have a clue. Perhaps we are assuming something occurred because we think of molestation meaning one thing while the actual details were something. It seemed strange that several people downplayed it even those in the legal positions. Whatever it was, thankfully it was caught. 1
Storm Rider Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 44 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Q: Let me ask you...who exactly do unit leaders call? A: Kirton-McConkie Q: Who does Kirton-McConkie represent the church or the abused? A: the church Seems pretty obvious to me who's interests are being protected Do you have any instances where the advice given was not to call the police or in some way was to the detriment of the victim?
Duncan Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Q: Let me ask you...who exactly do unit leaders call? A: Kirton-McConkie Q: Who does Kirton-McConkie represent the church or the abused? A: the church Seems pretty obvious to me who's interests are being protected well, as I say a law was broken so why not call a lawyer and I know that at least here LDS Social services based out of Lethbridge are also called to help the victim. I have no doubt though the the Church law firm would tell the leaders to get help for all involve and to involved local authorities. The only reason? a church lawyer would get involved beyond giving legal advice is if there was someone suing the Church but I would imagine that doesn't happen often. They give legal advice and tell leaders what to do and what happens as lawyers typically know the legal process and disciplinary council stuff. If however a kid in the Church was messed with but not by a member why would you call SLC? you'd call the local legal eagles as you would if anyone did anything illegal Edited February 4, 2016 by Duncan 1
sheilauk Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 3 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said: Lawyers for an institution protect the institution that pays them. That is an unwarranted slur on lawyers. Lawyers advise according to the law. If the law insists on disclosure that would be the advice. If you wish to remain cynical about it, telling someone to report to the police where that is legally required would protect the institution because to do otherwise would cause more problems. However, lawyers tend to give a wide range of advice and then carry out instructions, they are usually not decision makers. 3
Johnnie Cake Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 13 hours ago, Calm said: Why do you think money would not be a problem? The Church has almost 30,000 congregations which means it probably has at least 10,000 chapels. If you had a camera for each class room and hallway as would be needed for sufficient coverage (and possibly outside), you would probably need over 30 cameras per buidling. How much do you think 30,000 security cameras would cost, including installing and maintaining them? Not saying it is a bad idea, just the idea that money wouldn't be a problem is very unrealistic. Honestly, molestations in churches to my knowledge has not been the problem, although I am aware of some committed by a missionary, but the 2 deep and windows in rooms policy seems like logical fixes...the real problem is that when a unit leader becomes aware of an abusive situation, they some times look after the needs of the abuser rather than the abused...this is the problem. 1
Duncan Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Honestly, molestations in churches to my knowledge has not been the problem, although I am aware of some committed by a missionary, but the 2 deep and windows in rooms policy seems like logical fixes...the real problem is that when a unit leader becomes aware of an abusive situation, they some times look after the needs of the abuser rather than the abused...this is the problem. kids have parents though and they look after the abused as well as the Bishop-as I say here LDS Social Services are called in. I do know of a situation, years ago, where a guy molested his daughter and I don't know if any therapy was called in and the wife told the Bishop but he didn't believe her. Later on this abuser was called to be in a Temple Presidency and now he's dead so God will deal with him now. i don't know if any police were alerted or not which is why I am stressing they need to be, right from get go Edited February 4, 2016 by Duncan 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 Just now, Duncan said: kids have parents though and they look after the abused as well as the Bishop-as I say here LDS Social Services are called in. I do know of a situation, years ago, where a guy molested his daughter and I don't know if any therapy was called in and the wife told the Bishop but he didn't believe her. Later on this abuser was called to be in a Temple Presidency and now he's dead so God will deal with him now had the bishop called the authorities he might have faced accountability in this life...sad that he got away with his crime
Duncan Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: had the bishop called the authorities he might have faced accountability in this life...sad that he got away with his crime it's true. This happened in the '80's maybe they were called but I don't know. What I do know is he was a skunk of a person, he was my first branch president in YSA.
Gray Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: Honestly, molestations in churches to my knowledge has not been the problem, although I am aware of some committed by a missionary, but the 2 deep and windows in rooms policy seems like logical fixes...the real problem is that when a unit leader becomes aware of an abusive situation, they some times look after the needs of the abuser rather than the abused...this is the problem. Two deep often turns to one deep when one of them needs to leave to take care of something. Happens all the time. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 25 minutes ago, Duncan said: it's true. This happened in the '80's maybe they were called but I don't know. What I do know is he was a skunk of a person, he was my first branch president in YSA. Abusers LOVE the shadows...this is why it is so important to expose their evil and hold them accountable for their actions 1
cinepro Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 A lot of this conversation seems to focus on Bishop's interviews, yet I have never heard of an instance of abuse by a Bishop in his office during an interview. Is this a common thing? Most stories I've heard are about other members of a ward who prey on children on camp outs or at other activities usually away from the church building. This happened in my stake growing up (I knew one of the brothers), so I know there can be problems. But I've had another young relative who worked around children get falsely accused and it nearly ruined his life. So I don't envy the Church's position in these matters. It's hard to atone for the mistakes of the past, so hopefully we can make progress going forward. 4
Calm Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, mtomm said: 18,000 meeting houses. Thanks for the info. Couldn't find it on the facts and stats page of mormon newsroom. I figured to err on the side of caution. Edited February 4, 2016 by Calm
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 46 minutes ago, cinepro said: A lot of this conversation seems to focus on Bishop's interviews, yet I have never heard of an instance of abuse by a Bishop in his office during an interview. Is this a common thing? Most stories I've heard are about other members of a ward who prey on children on camp outs or at other activities usually away from the church building. This happened in my stake growing up (I knew one of the brothers), so I know there can be problems. But I've had another young relative who worked around children get falsely accused and it nearly ruined his life. So I don't envy the Church's position in these matters. It's hard to atone for the mistakes of the past, so hopefully we can make progress going forward. I've never heard of physical abuse in Bishop meetings before, but I have heard of teenage girls being uncomfortable that a grown man is asking them about their sex lives behind closed doors.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 17 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said: Why would a stake president push for a mission for a man who molested a 6 year old girl, that is so seriously beyond belief it is just sick. Did you read the linked article? I'm personally unimpressed by witch hunts.
mtomm Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 4 hours ago, Calm said: Thanks for the info. Couldn't find it on the facts and stats page of mormon newsroom. I figured to err on the side of caution. I just happened to be sitting in a meeting and the presenter mentioned the number. Quite timely I thought. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) However I do find this comment by Elder Scott quite disturbing: Quote The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. When exactly is an abused responsible for their abuse? NEVER He can't be serious (although he is) and frankly I'm Gobsmacked. This is an extremely harmful message and should be stricken from all LDS records. see entire article here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng&_r=1 Edited February 9, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 1
ksfisher Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 34 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: However I do find this comment by Elder Scott quite disturbing: When exactly is an abused responsible for their abuse? NEVER He can't be serious (although he is) and frankly I'm Gobsmacked. This is an extremely harmful message and should be stricken from all LDS records. see entire article here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng&_r=1 I think the key word in what you've bolded above is "may." 1
ALarson Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I think the key word in what you've bolded above is "may." When may a "victim" be responsible for their abuse? Examples? Edited February 9, 2016 by ALarson
Duncan Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 Just now, ALarson said: When may a "victim" be responsible for their abuse? Examples? to get help for their abuse, they aren't the cause of it but they need to get help for it-otherwise you can live with hate and anger, addictions and other bad things in life 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I think the key word in what you've bolded above is "may." I'm at a loss to understand when an abused person is responsible for being abused...sorry but "may", "could" or whatever qualifying term you would like to assess an abused person can never make them responsible for their abuse...Elder Scottt words are like throwing salt in an open wound...they seems insensitive, hurtful and out of touch It doesn't matter his motivations...he's just plain wrong Edited February 9, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 1
ALarson Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 Just now, Duncan said: to get help for their abuse, they aren't the cause of it but they need to get help for it-otherwise you can live with hate and anger, addictions and other bad things in life Oh, I agree. But that does not mean they are "responsible" for their abuse. Responsibility is the key word in the quote above from Elder Scott, not may.
Duncan Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: Oh, I agree. But that does not mean they are "responsible" for their abuse. Responsibility is the key word in the quote above from Elder Scott, not may. you, as a victim, are responsible to get help or ask for someone to get you help
ksfisher Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 10 minutes ago, ALarson said: 11 minutes ago, ALarson said: When may a "victim" be responsible for their abuse? Examples? I don't have any specific examples in mind. I think it's worth exploring the definition of the word may before we dismiss what Elder Scott has to say. Regardless, I don't think that Elder Scott is in any way attempting to diminish the culpability of the perpetrator of the abuse.
ALarson Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 Just now, Duncan said: you, as a victim, are responsible to get help or ask for someone to get you help That's not what was stated. Here's the part of the quote that is problematic: "....a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse"
Recommended Posts