There was a second woman, and the church knew

[juliann]

How many women does it take to equal one credible witness? More than 80, apparently....

This is a failing of the state more than the church, but the local response is more evidence that the church badly needs to get its leaders on board with taking sexual abuse claims seriously. 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/455960/DID-REXBURG-IGNORE-TALK-OF-ABUSE-BY-MD.html

Quote

 

"We have followed up with this matter in very prayerful consideration," Young wrote. "We have pursued the course of action that was deemed most appropriate."

On Oct. 12, church officials confirmed Withers was placed on probation and at least temporarily stripped of the privilege to enter the church's temples or fully participate in some church rituals.

"If that is definitely all they have done, I am disappointed," the woman told the newspaper. "His membership should be taken away."

 

Scores of women. The medical board takes away his license but the SP thinks "probation" is adequate for a sexual predator. 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

How many women does it take to equal one credible witness? More than 80, apparently....

This is a failing of the state more than the church, but the local response is more evidence that the church badly needs to get its leaders on board with taking sexual abuse claims seriously. 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/455960/DID-REXBURG-IGNORE-TALK-OF-ABUSE-BY-MD.html

Scores of women. The medical board takes away his license but the SP thinks "probation" is adequate for a sexual predator. 

Are you kidding me?? I didn't know this...probation??? Hey...the least would be disfellowshipped!

Edited March 26, 2018 by Jeanne

[provoman]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If someone is responding to a CFR with "go look it up yourself" then report them.  Some posters seem to think it's a badge of honor to never report anyone who breaks the rules; it's really just dumb not to report something if you think it's a problem.  The mods won't have a clue what's going on otherwise. They don't follow threads.

As someone has recently responded about reporting "what's the point". I appreciate your "advice" about reporting, one does not need be on this forum long, to know that when comes to issuing a CFR to certain individuals and response is essentially "go look it up yourself" that the result is the person requesting the reference gets thread banned, temp ban, or accused of board nanny. There are those who can quote the board rules and not get banned as a "board nanny" and there is everyone else who quote the board rules and get a board nanny label and/or thread ban. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by provoman

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Are you kidding me?? I didn't know this...probation??? Hey...the least would be disfellowshipped!

Notice the date on the article, as an FYI. It is more of a "the more things change the more they stay the same" thing.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think you may be correct and I was told something false.  I was told about the “5 women” and believed it when the person told me that it was reported by KUTV this weekend.  

I apologize, I should have verified before repeating it here.  Usually, I do like to check things out on my own.  It was a lapse in judgment and I’m sorry. 

I can see why indignation (appropriate, btw, I was sick when I read your claim...it meant there were likely going to be tons and I just don't want that many in pain) might have caused you to be less cautious.  I think, however, this case needs our extra care, it is so convoluted and so many negative implications attached.  All good now. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

CFR is kind of a joke here. It's really just a bludgeon to beat someone with, and neither the issuer nor the recipient usually have any intent on accepting or filling it. 

I issue it all the time and the only thing I want to know is a claimed source so I can learn more about the subject or how the person came to consider something a fact.

[provoman]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Edited March 26, 2018 by provoman

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, provoman said:

As someone has recently responded about reporting "what's the point". I appreciate your "advice" about reporting, one does not need be on this forum long, to know that when comes to issuing a CFR to certain individuals and response is essentially "go look it up yourself" that the result is the person requesting the reference gets thread banned, temp ban, or accused of board nanny. There are those who can quote the board rules and not get banned as a "board nanny" and there is everyone else who quote the board rules and get a board nanny label and/or thread ban. 

Anyone who gets a "look it up yourself" comment PM me and I will report it to the mods if you are concerned they won't take you seriously.  While there are a number of my reports that are ignored as far as I can tell (someone still posts in a thread)I have never been banned for reporting someone...or banned at all.  I have never gotten a ticket either, even a parking ticket (deserved one back when I was 16 for driving through a stop sign and on occasion for speeding when not paying attention).

Serious offer, I want to be able to continue using CFR because I come here to learn and I love to see how people's minds work.  So it works better for me if people take CFR seriously.

And feel free to tell me to report anything else IF you can restrain yourself from commenting about it in the thread unless it is really bad as well as I don't like long derails on the subject of civility, though I know sometimes things need to be said.  In reporting as opposed to moderating, I don't have to choose a position of judgment, so no stress for me.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Did you find it equally sad when the eleven other states, including California, implemented two party recording laws?  Personally, I'm in favor of two-party consent laws.  I value the right to have private conversations.  

Of course. Big institutions have so much power over individuals that have a grievance.  This law does not help level the playing field as far as I can tell no matter what state you are in.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Are you kidding me?? I didn't know this...probation??? Hey...the least would be disfellowshipped!

The church doesn't seem to have a clear distinction between how to handle criminal sexual abuse and regular sexual behavior between consenting individuals.  Now the regular sexual behavior might be considered sinful by church standards if its between unmarried individuals, but this behavior should be orders of magnitude less serious than abuse.  Any criminal abuse should be immediately elevated to the top of the list of egregious sins that have clear ramifications and accountability, including at least removing that individual from any callings that might allow them to abuse others.  

The more these stories that come out, the more glaring the abysmal practices and policies the church has had in place to handle these kinds of situations.  And we should remember that the more recent examples of mishandling are in a world that has seen the Catholic abuse scandals and other high profile abuse scandals in the media, so such poor practices in a world that has seen the fallout from other organizations is evidence to me of the incompetence of the current leadership.  

[drums12]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The church doesn't seem to have a clear distinction between how to handle criminal sexual abuse and regular sexual behavior between consenting individuals.  Now the regular sexual behavior might be considered sinful by church standards if its between unmarried individuals, but this behavior should be orders of magnitude less serious than abuse.  Any criminal abuse should be immediately elevated to the top of the list of egregious sins that have clear ramifications and accountability, including at least removing that individual from any callings that might allow them to abuse others.  

The more these stories that come out, the more glaring the abysmal practices and policies the church has had in place to handle these kinds of situations.  And we should remember that the more recent examples of mishandling are in a world that has seen the Catholic abuse scandals and other high profile abuse scandals in the media, so such poor practices in a world that has seen the fallout from other organizations is evidence to me of the incompetence of the current leadership.  

Yes is does.  I know for a fact that the GHI requires disciplinary councils to be held in cases of criminal sexual abuse.  There is no such requirement for chastity violations between consenting individuals, unless one is in a position of leadership.  I have my own issues with Church policies and a host of other things, but some of you all are just drawing wild inferences.

[rockpond]

From this current issue I see an organizational problem that we as a church need to address. 

I first want to acknowledge that I truly believe these cases of abuse by priesthood leaders are extremely rare.  But that doesn’t mean we can ignore it. 

See if you agree with these points...

1. When abuse by a priesthood leader happens it is most likely going to be in a one on one situation. 

2. When that one woman (or man) comes forward to another priesthood leader to report the abuse, the leader has to decide if he believes the victim. 

3.  He might be able to go to the accused leader but, as in this case, there is a good chance the accused will deny any guilt. 

4.  Faced with a “he said, she said” situation, it may be tough to side against someone you may “know” to be a faithful priesthood leader. 

5.  The church does not seem to have a way to track accusations and cross reference to see if there are commonalities. 

I think that set of factors is a problem. But, it’s a problem we can fix. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by rockpond

[hope_for_things]

43 minutes ago, drums12 said:

Yes is does.  I know for a fact that the GHI requires disciplinary councils to be held in cases of criminal sexual abuse.  There is no such requirement for chastity violations between consenting individuals, unless one is in a position of leadership.  I have my own issues with Church policies and a host of other things, but some of you all are just drawing wild inferences.

If this is true, why all these scandals where leaders are not held accountable for abuse behavior?  If that policy was being adequately followed it would go a long way toward helping in these cases. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

From this current issue I see an organizational problem that we as a church need to address. 

I first want to acknowledge that I truly believe these cases of abuse by priesthood leaders are extremely rare.  But that doesn’t mean we can ignore it. 

See if you agree with these points...

1. When abuse by a priesthood leader happens it is most likely going to be in a one on one situation. 

2. When that one woman (or man) comes forward to another priesthood leader to report the abuse, the leader has to decide if he believes the victim. 

3.  He might be able to go to the accused leader but, as in this case, there is a good chance the accused will deny any guilt. 

4.  Faced with a “he said, she said” situation, it may be tough to side against someone you may “know” to be a faithful priesthood leader. 

5.  The church does not seem to have a way to track accusations and cross reference to see if there are commonalities. 

I think that set of factors is a problem. But, it’s a problem we can fix. 

So what do you think the church leaders should do when it is a he said/she said situation?

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

So what do you think the church leaders should do when it is a he said/she said situation?

 

Quote

Responding to Abuse (See Handbook 1, 17.3.2) Church leaders and members should follow these guidelines when responding to abuse:

• When abuse occurs, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse. Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe.
• Church leaders and members should be caring, compassionate, and sensitive when working with victims and perpetrators and their families.
• Church leaders should never disregard a report of abuse or counsel a member not to report criminal activity to law enforcement personnel.
• Church leaders and members should fulfill all legal obligations to report abuse to civil authorities.
• Priesthood leaders should help those who have committed abuse to repent and cease their abusive behavior (see Isaiah 1:18; Doctrine and Covenants 64:7).
• Professional counseling may be helpful for the victims and perpetrators and their families. It is almost always advised in cases of serious abuse.

 

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

So what do you think the church leaders should do when it is a he said/she said situation?

Hamba quoted (above) the section from the handbook that was also referenced in today's letter from the FP to church leaders.  

But, I don't think it is strong enough.  I don't think those handbook guidelines do enough to protect the one, over the 99.  And as these cases continue to surface, I don't think judges are going to consider the church's actions sufficient.

Below, I have taken the points from the handbook and added what I think might be beneficial.  In addition to those, I think that one-on-one interviews with anyone under the age of 21 need to end as well as any questions of a sexual nature.

• When abuse occurs or is alleged to have occurred, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse. Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe.
• Church leaders and members should be caring, compassionate, and sensitive when working with victims, including alleged victims, and their families.
• Church leaders should never disregard a report of abuse or counsel a member not to report criminal activity to law enforcement personnel.  When there is a report of abuse (even if incredulous) in which the alleged perpetrator is a church member or leader, the report should be communicated to the First Presidency through the existing priesthood hierachy.  Each level of priesthood leaders (from the First Presidency down to local unit leaders) must to monitor the situation until fully resolved.
• Church leaders and members should fulfill all legal obligations to report abuse to civil authorities. 
• Priesthood leaders should help those who have committed abuse to repent and cease their abusive behavior (see Isaiah 1:18; Doctrine and Covenants 64:7).  Church leaders must also make every effort to assure that those who have committed abuse are not put in situations where they may be likely to repeat the offense.
• Professional counseling may be helpful for the victims and perpetrators and their families. It is almost always advised in cases of serious abuse.

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by rockpond

[Calm]

"hen there is a report of abuse (even if incredulous) in which the alleged perpetrator is a church member or leader, the report should be communicated to the First Presidency through the existing priesthood hierachy.  Each level of priesthood leaders (from the First Presidency down to local unit leaders) must to monitor the situation until fully resolved."

I disagree, too much can go wrong if it is done up the line.  Just has to sit on one's person's desk a bit too long.  Plus leaders have so much other stuff on their plate, it may fall through the cracks.  Better to report to a centralized department that deals with this...like the current hotline.

There is probably enough abuse in families that by the time you get to the step above Stake Presidency, it becomes the majority of the job to monitor.

"Church leaders must also make every effort to assure that those who have committed abuse are not put in situations where they may be likely to repeat the offense."

I would suggest "similar situations" because someone might believe it is unlikely someone will reoffend for any reason and therefore place them in similar situations, which then might raise the chance of reoffending.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

"hen there is a report of abuse (even if incredulous) in which the alleged perpetrator is a church member or leader, the report should be communicated to the First Presidency through the existing priesthood hierachy.  Each level of priesthood leaders (from the First Presidency down to local unit leaders) must to monitor the situation until fully resolved."

I disagree, too much can go wrong if it is done up the line.  Just has to sit on one's person's desk a bit too long.  Plus leaders have so much other stuff on their plate, it may fall through the cracks.  Better to report to a centralized department that deals with this...like the current hotline.

There is probably enough abuse in families that by the time you get to the step above Stake Presidency, it becomes the majority of the job to monitor.

"Church leaders must also make every effort to assure that those who have committed abuse are not put in situations where they may be likely to repeat the offense."

I would suggest "similar situations" because someone might believe it is unlikely someone will reoffend for any reason and therefore place them in similar situations, which then might raise the chance of reoffending.

Good points.  Although, I think we need to find a balance between my "reporting" suggestion and just the hotline.  I think that there needs to be some leadership insight (throughout the hierarchy) and some tracking of the data.

I bring that point up because it is sounding like there were two (so far), similar reports against Joseph Bishop but it does not seem that anyone was ever given the insight to notice.  Seems like a problem.  I can see how it would have been tough for either Bishop/Stake President to have believed a woman claiming that the MTC President abused her in some storage room with a bed.  But if some database somewhere had connected the two reports, suddenly what was tough to believe, could have flagged someone somewhere and been a catalyst to dig deeper.

Edited March 27, 2018 by rockpond

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good points.  Although, I think we need to find a balance between my "reporting" suggestion and just the hotline.  I think that there needs to be some leadership insight (throughout the hierarchy) and some tracking of the data.

I bring that point up because it is sounding like there were two (so far), similar reports against Joseph Bishop but it does not seem that anyone was ever given the insight to notice.  Seems like a problem.  I can see how it would have been tough for either Bishop/Stake President to have believed a woman claiming that the MTC President abused her in some storage room with a bed.  But if some database somewhere had connected the two reports, suddenly what was tough to believe, could have flagged someone somewhere and been a catalyst to dig deeper.

I agree in general...as should be obvious from my own suggestions.

I am having trouble with specifics of this case though as an example of the problem of coordination.  And since this thread is about the specific accusations, I am going to think out loud on the off chance that someone has answers.  I have probably mentioned some of this stuff before.  Lost track of what I have said and whatvI have just thought about.

What are the chances that the second woman would report for the first time in the same year as the other one did, especially given the massive gap (23 years) involved?  Would be nice to know the month.  It seems like they knew of each other, perhaps one had contacted the other in hopes that the two of them both reporting would cause some more movement.  Instead it might have decreased their credibility if they weren't open about it.

The Church report states both times the accusations were heard at Salt Lake, correct? (I will go to reread it, but bishops here....is it ever the case that a bishop of the accuser directly contacts the bishop of the accused? they can access a full Church membership directory, so could find where an accuser was living if the record is up to date ) and then sent to Bishop's local leaders, so it is very likely someone must have heard about both allegations, either at SLC or locally.  Why in SLC or on the hotline or whatever happened at the center were the two reports not connected (perhaps they were but discounted as conspiracy)?  I think it is unlikely that at least the lawyers doing the consulting on the hotline don't track calls.  

At the local level...

Bishops are not released at the same time as Stake Presidents, right?  So if the accusation came to more or less the same set of local leaders, was it still treated as a he said, she said because he denied them both and there was no evidence besides their claims?  It is certainly possible he moved after the first accusation and no notation was made on his records, so I am not saying it is impossible it wasn't at least some of the same leaders.  Would a new bishop call his old one to see if there was any troubling history?  I am just curious as to what happened.  Would it have just been his bishop and stake president who would know of the accusation or would some counselors be involved?

Another option is that the women made it clear they knew each other, so the two allegations were seen as one...perhaps Bishop claimed they were conspiring against him...this may be why he clearly remembered the second woman's last name after 30plus years.  Or perhaps they didn't make it clear they knew each other, but Bishop told his leaders they did.

I think I have mentioned before how I dislike unanswered mysteries.  I also know it is likely none of my business to know.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Hamba quoted (above) the section from the handbook that was also referenced in today's letter from the FP to church leaders.  

But, I don't think it is strong enough.  I don't think those handbook guidelines do enough to protect the one, over the 99.  And as these cases continue to surface, I don't think judges are going to consider the church's actions sufficient.

Below, I have taken the points from the handbook and added what I think might be beneficial.  In addition to those, I think that one-on-one interviews with anyone under the age of 21 need to end as well as any questions of a sexual nature.

• When abuse occurs or is alleged to have occurred, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse. Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe.
• Church leaders and members should be caring, compassionate, and sensitive when working with victims, including alleged victims, and their families.
• Church leaders should never disregard a report of abuse or counsel a member not to report criminal activity to law enforcement personnel.  When there is a report of abuse (even if incredulous) in which the alleged perpetrator is a church member or leader, the report should be communicated to the First Presidency through the existing priesthood hierachy.  Each level of priesthood leaders (from the First Presidency down to local unit leaders) must to monitor the situation until fully resolved.
• Church leaders and members should fulfill all legal obligations to report abuse to civil authorities. 
• Priesthood leaders should help those who have committed abuse to repent and cease their abusive behavior (see Isaiah 1:18; Doctrine and Covenants 64:7).  Church leaders must also make every effort to assure that those who have committed abuse are not put in situations where they may be likely to repeat the offense.
• Professional counseling may be helpful for the victims and perpetrators and their families. It is almost always advised in cases of serious abuse.

 

I think this is the easy part. What I am really asking is what next?  The police come and it is he said/she said. Then what?  Church leaders call the person in. He denies it. Then what?

all of those steps were followed with the Bishop case. It appears that he kept abusing women. How does that not continue to happen?  Hoe do these women get justice?  How do these kind of guys face any consequence for there actions?

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I think this is the easy part. What I am really asking is what next?  The police come and it is he said/she said. Then what?  Church leaders call the person in. He denies it. Then what?

all of those steps were followed with the Bishop case. It appears that he kept abusing women. How does that not continue to happen?  Hoe do these women get justice?  How do these kind of guys face any consequence for there actions?

I definitely don't have all the answers.  In Bishop's case, I feel like all the dots weren't connected (all the people involved weren't in the same ward/stake so it was different leaders, the second woman wasn't believed, Asay didn't pass along the report he allegedly received, Wells may have sat on the confession, etc.), so I was trying to address that as a matter of policy.

The questions you raise may need to be addressed by cultural change.  Maybe the key to answering those questions lies in getting rid of patriarchy and working toward a better understanding of how we view our leaders.

[Tacenda]

http://www.nowscape.com/atheism/mo_pedophile.htm

Just a portion... but seems this has been going on for quite awhile. That some bishops still don't get it, or don't read the handbook. 

But Lavina Fielding Anderson, an excommunicated Mormon who co-wrote a book
documenting what she describes as widespread "ecclesiastical and spiritual
abuses" by the church in cases of child abuse, said she was not surprised
recently when a development in the case of convicted child molester Shonn M.
Ricks made the news in Utah.

Ricks, 23, was found guilty by a Salt Lake City jury of molesting a 6-year-old
girl in February 1997.  Citing Ricks' severe heart condition, the judge reduced
his two second-degree felony convictions to third-degree felonies, which carry a
maximum sentence of five years rather than the 15 years he could have received.

Then when Ricks, a Mormon, came up for parole in a hearing last August, his
friends, relatives and church leaders reportedly filled the room.

The reason: Mormon leaders contended that Ricks was sufficiently rehabilitated
after less than two years in prison to receive a church "call" to a mission in
Chile.

The parole board chairman, also a Mormon, pushed for the early release -- which
the full board later approved -- and Ricks was freed over the objections of the
victim's father, who also is a Mormon.

[Maestrophil]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.nowscape.com/atheism/mo_pedophile.htm

Just a portion... but seems this has been going on for quite awhile. That some bishops still don't get it, or don't read the handbook. 

But Lavina Fielding Anderson, an excommunicated Mormon who co-wrote a book
documenting what she describes as widespread "ecclesiastical and spiritual
abuses" by the church in cases of child abuse, said she was not surprised
recently when a development in the case of convicted child molester Shonn M.
Ricks made the news in Utah.

Ricks, 23, was found guilty by a Salt Lake City jury of molesting a 6-year-old
girl in February 1997.  Citing Ricks' severe heart condition, the judge reduced
his two second-degree felony convictions to third-degree felonies, which carry a
maximum sentence of five years rather than the 15 years he could have received.

Then when Ricks, a Mormon, came up for parole in a hearing last August, his
friends, relatives and church leaders reportedly filled the room.

The reason: Mormon leaders contended that Ricks was sufficiently rehabilitated
after less than two years in prison to receive a church "call" to a mission in
Chile.

The parole board chairman, also a Mormon, pushed for the early release -- which
the full board later approved -- and Ricks was freed over the objections of the
victim's father, who also is a Mormon.

My opinion - pedophiles do not reform.  

[Danzo]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.nowscape.com/atheism/mo_pedophile.htm

Just a portion... but seems this has been going on for quite awhile. That some bishops still don't get it, or don't read the handbook. 

But Lavina Fielding Anderson, an excommunicated Mormon who co-wrote a book
documenting what she describes as widespread "ecclesiastical and spiritual
abuses" by the church in cases of child abuse, said she was not surprised
recently when a development in the case of convicted child molester Shonn M.
Ricks made the news in Utah.

Ricks, 23, was found guilty by a Salt Lake City jury of molesting a 6-year-old
girl in February 1997.  Citing Ricks' severe heart condition, the judge reduced
his two second-degree felony convictions to third-degree felonies, which carry a
maximum sentence of five years rather than the 15 years he could have received.

Then when Ricks, a Mormon, came up for parole in a hearing last August, his
friends, relatives and church leaders reportedly filled the room.

The reason: Mormon leaders contended that Ricks was sufficiently rehabilitated
after less than two years in prison to receive a church "call" to a mission in
Chile.

The parole board chairman, also a Mormon, pushed for the early release -- which
the full board later approved -- and Ricks was freed over the objections of the
victim's father, who also is a Mormon.

if ricks is 23 and he mollested a girl in 1997

was ricks a 2 year old when he molested a 6 year old?

 

[ttribe]

33 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

My opinion - pedophiles do not reform.  

It's not just your opinion.  I've heard the same thing expressed by mental health professionals and law enforcement officers.