Rob Porter, and Mormonism's #MeToo Moment

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

It sounds like everyone (including mental health professionals) over the years did the best that anyone could have done with that patient. I've also had to work with and help people who end up being committed, or who are a threat to themselves or others. In a few cases, me, my family, and others have been threatened and were in danger. Rare, but it happens. 

Much harder than spotting these rather obvious cases are cases where members have "mental illness" (I use quote marks not as scare quotes or to diminish from mental illness, but simply because the definition of mental illness has swelled to include a lot of formerly normal people at different stages. Cf. the prominence of articles in the Ensign and general conference mentions dealing with depression, anxiety, etc. as mental illness) but are functional. As you indicate, people can have mental illness that deteriorates over time, but as you also indicate, even the professionals can fail to spot this. It's a challenge for both lay clergy and professionals. 

So if 20 people come to you seeking help and only one of them is really mentally ill, you think you are going to be able to spot that one person every time?

 

By the way the professionals didn't fail to spot it. They had trouble specifically diagnosing it.  There is a huge difference. And even while they were trying to figure out exactly what was going on, treatment was effective. It really sounds like you have some very poorly informed ideas of how mental illness works and of your ability to detect it.

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Now Rob Porter is claiming the picture of his Ex-Wife with a black eye was not caused by him, but was the result of a fall on a vacation.  

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/373689-rob-porter-claimed-ex-wifes-black-eye-was-due-to-a-fall-report?__twitter_impression=true

My wife got a black eye playing with our dog when we had one. Every person she worked with blamed it on me even though they had never met me.

[USU78]

I have no opinion or information on the Porter situation, and don't wish to diminish or enhance either side's position here.  Porter was right to resign, in any case, as the media circus is a distraction preventing his functioning in his appointed position.  Guilt/Innocence doesn't matter.

That being said, I am sad to have to admit to something that bears on this issue.  When I was a puppy in my profession, I, as low man on the totem pole, was stuck doing the domestic work at my first firm.  A practical problem arose in many cases for which the law had and has no legitimate remedy:

If I want a divorce and my spouse won't leave the house where the children and I will have to live, what do I do to get him out?

This was and remains the nasty, corrupt answer:

I invent stories and incidents of domestic abuse and/or child neglect and go get an ex parte protective order removing my soon-to-be-former spouse from the house.

The movie Kramer v Kramer dealt with this to a large extent, though in a different procedural setting.

Litigants lie.  Domestic relations litigants lie abominably.  How do you know when a domestic relations lawyer is lying?  He's speaking  ...  or he's typing  ...  or he's employing emotive body language.

The system is designed to encourage the most outrageous of lies in domestic relations settings.

So  ...  there's really no reason to take a position on husband vs ex wife/soon-to-be-ex wife disputes.  The law doesn't care what's true.

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I have no opinion or information on the Porter situation, and don't wish to diminish or enhance either side's position here.  Porter was right to resign, in any case, as the media circus is a distraction preventing his functioning in his appointed position.  Guilt/Innocence doesn't matter.

That being said, I am sad to have to admit to something that bears on this issue.  When I was a puppy in my profession, I, as low man on the totem pole, was stuck doing the domestic work at my first firm.  A practical problem arose in many cases for which the law had and has no legitimate remedy:

If I want a divorce and my spouse won't leave the house where the children and I will have to live, what do I do to get him out?

This was and remains the nasty, corrupt answer:

I invent stories and incidents of domestic abuse and/or child neglect and go get an ex parte protective order removing my soon-to-be-former spouse from the house.

The movie Kramer v Kramer dealt with this to a large extent, though in a different procedural setting.

Litigants lie.  Domestic relations litigants lie abominably.  How do you know when a domestic relations lawyer is lying?  He's speaking  ...  or he's typing  ...  or he's employing emotive body language.

The system is designed to encourage the most outrageous of lies in domestic relations settings.

So  ...  there's really no reason to take a position on husband vs ex wife/soon-to-be-ex wife disputes.  The law doesn't care what's true.

Building on that my Dr. used to be a ER Dr. he said that this 14 yr girl came into the ER one day and said she was having seizures, so he ran all kinds of tests but couldn't find any abnormal brain activity or other signs of seizures so he couldn't do anything for her so he sent her home. He said that every single week for 2 years this girl would come in and say she had a seizure or seizures but they couldn't find any signs of that, they sent her to a Neurologist and they couldn't find anything. She didn't always come to see him but she saw another Dr. He siad it became fairly obvious she was bluffing but they ran tests anyways, in case she wasn't. After 2 years of this and her friends would come by for support and whatnot, she told him she was going for her learners permit, he told she couldn't get it for 5 years, when asked why not he said, well your medical file is a mile high with seizures and so Dr. in North America would sign off on that for a your learner's, you have to be seizure free for 5 years. They never saw her again, surprise, surprise

[Rain]

56 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Building on that my Dr. used to be a ER Dr. he said that this 14 yr girl came into the ER one day and said she was having seizures, so he ran all kinds of tests but couldn't find any abnormal brain activity or other signs of seizures so he couldn't do anything for her so he sent her home. He said that every single week for 2 years this girl would come in and say she had a seizure or seizures but they couldn't find any signs of that, they sent her to a Neurologist and they couldn't find anything. She didn't always come to see him but she saw another Dr. He siad it became fairly obvious she was bluffing but they ran tests anyways, in case she wasn't. After 2 years of this and her friends would come by for support and whatnot, she told him she was going for her learners permit, he told she couldn't get it for 5 years, when asked why not he said, well your medical file is a mile high with seizures and so Dr. in North America would sign off on that for a your learner's, you have to be seizure free for 5 years. They never saw her again, surprise, surprise

This isn't normal. It makes me wonder just what was wrong hat she kept coming in. I don't mean physically wrong. Was she trying to get away from someone? Annoy someone? Get attention from a parent? What was the underlying cause of her coming in? Was she missing love from her patents? I mean really - every week for 2 years. What was going on in her life that the doctors were missing?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

This isn't normal. It makes me wonder just what was wrong hat she kept coming in. I don't mean physically wrong. Was she trying to get away from someone? Annoy someone? Get attention from a parent? What was the underlying cause of her coming in? Was she missing love from her patents? I mean really - every week for 2 years. What was going on in her life that the doctors were missing?

Drs weren't missing anything: 14 year old junkie gets no candy at ER, despite trying really hard. Happens every day.

[Duncan]

48 minutes ago, Rain said:

This isn't normal. It makes me wonder just what was wrong hat she kept coming in. I don't mean physically wrong. Was she trying to get away from someone? Annoy someone? Get attention from a parent? What was the underlying cause of her coming in? Was she missing love from her patents? I mean really - every week for 2 years. What was going on in her life that the doctors were missing?

I think she wanted attention and people to make a fuss about her

[Rain]

44 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Drs weren't missing anything: 14 year old junkie gets no candy at ER, despite trying really hard. Happens every day.

There was nothing in the post to make me think she was an addict. I'd never heard of anti-seisure meds being addictive until you said this and I looked it up. 

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think she wanted attention and people to make a fuss about her

See, that's what I don't get (assuming USU was wrong about her being an addict) - if a teen is going in the the hospital to get attention that often then she must be missing love, attention, concern, friendship, something, somewhere in her life. 

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

There was nothing in the post to make me think she was an addict. I'd never heard of anti-seisure meds being addictive until you said this and I looked it up. 

Depakote. Son with seizure disorder. Obscure stuff.

[bcuzbcuz]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

My wife got a black eye playing with our dog when we had one. Every person she worked with blamed it on me even though they had never met me.

A black eye is not proof of partner abuse, anymore than a broken arm would be. If, however, a woman goes to the police or the ER with a black eye or a broken arm and claims the injury was caused by an abusive partner, the laws requiring a thorough investigation (in my country) are very clear. No one should get a free pass in such a situation, such as an investigation being closed, because the accused is well known or rich. But it does happen.

The police or the medical authorities are not qualified to determine that the person claiming abuse is not telling the truth. Granted, the truth may be difficult to differentiate from the untruth, but an investigation must occur. 

IMO a bishop should not be the final judge in a case of abuse.

[rongo]

14 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So if 20 people come to you seeking help and only one of them is really mentally ill, you think you are going to be able to spot that one person every time?

Perhaps, perhaps not. But professionals' battering average isn't 1.000 at that, either. 

What's interesting to me is that the vast majority of the "mentally ill" in our wards (depression, anxiety, personality disorders, bipolar, even some schizophrenia) are already receiving medical treatment and counseling without the bishop even knowing or being involved initially. That is, the bishop finds out in the course of working with people that these things are already in place. My experience is not that people come to the bishop as the initial, front-line consultation for mental health disorders; rather, these disorders come out in the course of working with them --- but they are already receiving treatment. Remember the TBM talking point about the apparent high incidence of anti-depressant use among Mormons? "They are more likely to seek professional help and avail themselves of professional advice; hence, much higher prescription medication use among Mormons as opposed to self-medicating via alcohol or illegal drugs, etc." I find in my own experience that this is very true. A high number of active, functioning LDS are on prescription drugs for mental health reasons, but this almost never, in my experience, is initiated by a bishop advising them to seek professional help. They typically have already done that. 

It really sounds like you have some very poorly informed ideas of how mental illness works and of your ability to detect it.

I'm sure from a certain perspective, that's true. From other perspectives, probably not. I'm not aware of any shipwreck or travesty that has accrued due to my poorly-informed ideas. But then, maybe those people haven't let me know . . .  

[Darren10]

On 2/13/2018 at 6:23 PM, Duncan said:

Something I have noticed is counselours are rarely called to be the Bishop or Stake President. The last two SP's here weren't in the Stake Presidency prior and my last 4 Bishops weren't in the bishopric prior to getting called so it's what you say, they are thrown into the deep end. I think trust is an issue, some people just don't feel comfortable telling their problems to their leaders, for whatever reason and the problem continues

Are you in a smaller area perhaps? I do not know about the stake presidencies but in my .ife experience, it is the counselors who are called bishop. Our current bishop, I do not think, has been in a bishopric but normally it seems that bishops are typically called from others who have served as counselors. Also, I do remember it was either my father or the previous bishop before him explaining to me in a one on one conversation that stake presidents like to call people to the stake presidency who have served in a bishopric. I assumed this would be typical church, except, of course, in areas of the world where church population is limited. But maybe it was just for the stake I was at at that time. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

Are you in a smaller area perhaps? I do not know about the stake presidencies but in my .ife experience, it is the counselors who are called bishop. Our current bishop, I do not think, has been in a bishopric but normally it seems that bishops are typically called from others who have served as counselors. Also, I do remember it was either my father or the previous bishop before him explaining to me in a one on one conversation that stake presidents like to call people to the stake presidency who have served in a bishopric. I assumed this would be typical church, except, of course, in areas of the world where church population is limited. But maybe it was just for the stake I was at at that time. 

My experience (Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and Chicago area) is that it is pretty random --- that there is not usually a "pattern" of usually counselors being elevated to bishop. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In our stake (which has existed since 2007), all stake presidency members have been bishops, and I think that is pretty typical, but it could be anyone. In my stake in Gilbert (2000-2002), a counselor from an outgoing stake presidency was called to be our bishop specifically so that he could have the experience of being a bishop. It broke the then-bishop's heart, because he had only been in for 8 months or so, and he was an excellent elderly man who was excited for his call!

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

My experience (Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and Chicago area) is that it is pretty random --- that there is not usually a "pattern" of usually counselors being elevated to bishop. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In our stake (which has existed since 2007), all stake presidency members have been bishops, and I think that is pretty typical, but it could be anyone. In my stake in Gilbert (2000-2002), a counselor from an outgoing stake presidency was called to be our bishop specifically so that he could have the experience of being a bishop. It broke the then-bishop's heart, because he had only been in for 8 months or so, and he was an excellent elderly man who was excited for his call!

Yes, that all makes sense. The stake I referenced was in the Buffalo Grove Stake which is in the Chicago area. I guess I was in a stake where the practice of placing potential bishops and stake presidents into related callings beforehand was commonplace. It could very well be that that is not practiced everywhere. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Darren10

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

Yes, that all makes sense. The stake I referenced was in the Buffalo Grove Stake which is in the Chicago area. I guess I was in a stake where the practice of placing potential bishops and stake presidents into related callings beforehand was commonplace. It could very well be that that is not practiced everywhere. 

Or, it could just be a cyclical blip in that area, too. 

I was in the Naperville Stake (split into the Joliet Stake by the time I got back from my mission in 1996). If it wasn't so expensive to live there, Chicagoland is a nice place!  

[Darren10]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Or, it could just be a cyclical blip in that area, too. 

I was in the Naperville Stake (split into the Joliet Stake by the time I got back from my mission in 1996). If it wasn't so expensive to live there, Chicagoland is a nice place!  

Cost of living is a big reason we moved to Houston.

Naperville is a nice area. Did you ever attend our single’s branch? It was the only one of its kind in that entire area so we had people from Naperville attend. It would have been around 1994 when I attended it.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Darren10

[stemelbow]

Unfortunately one mistake regarding abuse with one bishop shows there is tolerance  for abuse in the Church's system.  And unfortunately with many documented mistakes with regards to abuse by many bishop's over time shows a the failure of the church to actually follow the zero tolerance claim regarding abuse.  That is, of course, the problem.  Some seem to think it's ok if a bishop here or there make mistakes with abuse.  Indeed, that's understandable.  But the problem is not the bishop's mistake, but his ignorance which often is the cause of the mistake.  And the ignorance is promoted by the system.  More than one mistake shows that.  

It's clear the problem is the system and coming from the central org claiming zero tolerance while tolerating mistakes due to the way the system runs.  If that's not clear to people I don't know what to say.

 

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Cost of living is a big reason we moved to Houston.

Naperville is a nice area. Did you ever attend our single’s branch? It was the only one of its kind in that entire area so we had people from Naperville attend. It would have been around 1994 when I attended it.

We lived there from 1990 to 1996 (10th grade through graduation for me, then mission). 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Unfortunately one mistake regarding abuse with one bishop shows there is tolerance  for abuse in the Church's system.  And unfortunately with many documented mistakes with regards to abuse by many bishop's over time shows a the failure of the church to actually follow the zero tolerance claim regarding abuse.  That is, of course, the problem.  Some seem to think it's ok if a bishop here or there make mistakes with abuse.  Indeed, that's understandable.  But the problem is not the bishop's mistake, but his ignorance which often is the cause of the mistake.  And the ignorance is promoted by the system.  More than one mistake shows that.  

It's clear the problem is the system and coming from the central org claiming zero tolerance while tolerating mistakes due to the way the system runs.  If that's not clear to people I don't know what to say.

So the solution is . . . what? Take all decision making away from bishops, because the track record isn't perfect? 

"One mistake regarding abuse with one bishop shows there is tolerance for abuse in the Church's system" = "even one instance is one time too many."

No system is perfect (not even professional counseling), but it sounds to me like you would like for bishops to not be able to make any decisions at all. Or to do any counseling of any kind for ward members. Is that correct? If not, what parameters would *you* box them in with?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

So the solution is . . . what? Take all decision making away from bishops, because the track record isn't perfect? 

"One mistake regarding abuse with one bishop shows there is tolerance for abuse in the Church's system" = "even one instance is one time too many."

No system is perfect (not even professional counseling), but it sounds to me like you would like for bishops to not be able to make any decisions at all. Or to do any counseling of any kind for ward members. Is that correct? If not, what parameters would *you* box them in with?

Don't they have some child abuse hotline?  Why not expand that if there isn't one already for spousal abuse?  If there is one, use it.  The central church can afford to have counselors and professionals that are well-versed in these matters and can have them available to walk bishops through proper procedures and practices.

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Don't they have some child abuse hotline?  Why not expand that if there isn't one already for spousal abuse?  If there is one, use it.  The central church can afford to have counselors and professionals that are well-versed in these matters and can have them available to walk bishops through proper procedures and practices.

The abuse hotline is for all abuse, not just child abuse. Your call is first screened by a social worker, and then you are transferred to an attorney. Any bishop calling with questions or concerns about a spousal abuse situation would get the same counsel by calling the existing number. That wheel has already been invented.  

Edited February 15, 2018 by rongo

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

So the solution is . . . what? Take all decision making away from bishops, because the track record isn't perfect? 

I have no idea what that would mean.  

Quote

"One mistake regarding abuse with one bishop shows there is tolerance for abuse in the Church's system" = "even one instance is one time too many."

No system is perfect (not even professional counseling), but it sounds to me like you would like for bishops to not be able to make any decisions at all. Or to do any counseling of any kind for ward members. Is that correct? If not, what parameters would *you* box them in with?

As I see it everyone does some counseling in the world with people.  Bishop's aren't alone.  The problem when it comes to counseling is when people assume they know what they are talking about when they don't.  It's the system of telling members that bishop's have some special access to God for them.  That they are the "fathers" of the ward and should be treated as knowing that which often they don't know.  It's in one on one interviews particularly when abuse issues arise. It's certainly not just bishop's who are the problem, but members who think, because they've been told, that the bishop will help them in nearly any and all problems in life.  

 

BTW I'm not saying I have the whole of the solution here.  I'm addressing the claim of zero tolerance.  It's rings as hollow as anything to me.  The fix, no doubt, is not easy and does not happen overnight.  I'd accept that.  No doubt in some ways the Church has tried.  But, the Church obviously tolerates to some extent, because the problems continue to be reported.  The Church would rather save the system then become intolerant of abuse.  

Edited February 15, 2018 by stemelbow

[Duncan]

52 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Are you in a smaller area perhaps? I do not know about the stake presidencies but in my .ife experience, it is the counselors who are called bishop. Our current bishop, I do not think, has been in a bishopric but normally it seems that bishops are typically called from others who have served as counselors. Also, I do remember it was either my father or the previous bishop before him explaining to me in a one on one conversation that stake presidents like to call people to the stake presidency who have served in a bishopric. I assumed this would be typical church, except, of course, in areas of the world where church population is limited. But maybe it was just for the stake I was at at that time. 

I live in Canada!! but I live in an area with limited church members, so yes. I can think about a 6-10 men who have served as Bishops twice now. Interestingly enough one ward is going to get a new Bishop, I can only think of 3 people who could do it but not well, one is on the High Council and he thinks that Naziism should be given the benefit of the doubt, one is a huge goofball but he is already in the Bishopric and another guy who has never served in a Bishopric but he's fairly new, I think he's the best option. Our Stake in the domino effect, we don't have a full High Council either and several of them don't speak English well, nice men but hard to understand. Our SP hadn't been in a Stake Pres. before and he was only the Bishop for 18 months prior, although of all the brethren interviewed for that calling I think he's the best option

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I have no idea what that would mean.  

I don't, either. That's why I asked. What would it actually look like, and what would bishop restrictions, decision flowcharts, etc. actually be like in real life?

As I see it everyone does some counseling in the world with people.  Bishop's aren't alone.  The problem when it comes to counseling is when people assume they know what they are talking about when they don't.  It's the system of telling members that bishop's have some special access to God for them.  That they are the "fathers" of the ward and should be treated as knowing that which often they don't know.  It's in one on one interviews particularly when abuse issues arise. It's certainly not just bishop's who are the problem, but members who think, because they've been told, that the bishop will help them in nearly any and all problems in life.

That's what I thought. End one-on-one interviews (even with adults). Stop teaching that bishops are "the father of the ward." Stop teaching reverence for callings with priesthood keys. 

So, in this world, bishops would still allowed to counsel, but not one-on-one. And what value would their counsel actually have? And why even go to them at all, for anything, then?