For Your Reading Pleasure: Tales From the 90s

[cinepro]

With the recent hubbub about abusive leaders and how the Church members and leaders react (or don't react) to such situations, it might be insightful to study two other well-documented situations in which a Mormon abuser was prominent in his community, and the way the Church leaders and LDS community handled the wolf in their midst.  Both occurred in the 1990s, and the parallels between the situations are striking.

Both are lengthy articles and will take some time to get through.  But I suspect once you start reading, you won't be able to stop.

 

The Fairfield Wives

Fairfield, California, is home to a large Mormon community, and for a long time many of the town's civic leaders have also been local leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Until the recent disclosures that have so disturbed the harmony of this serene and proper town, Dr. John Parkinson was one such leader.

 

 

Shame and Silence in Rexburg (part 1)

For three decades, women whispered about Dr. LaVar Withers' conduct in the examining room. But those who spoke up often were met with official denial. Now an Idaho town's secret has gone public.

(part 2)

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Actually there are hundreds of such stories over time, few known to the Mormon community generally:

In the case of John D. Parkinson, M.D., he was stake president in Fairfield (the county seat for Solano County, Calif).  A Mormon woman assembled a list of his sexual abuse and submitted it to higher LDS leaders, but was apparently ignored.  So the case was filed against Dr Parkinson in Solano County Superior Court, and Dr Parkinson eventually lost his license to practice medicine, although he continued to practice anyway – leading to his being found guilty of practicing medicine without a license, etc.

The case of LaVar Withers, M.D., is far more egregious, and extended over a period of thirty years (1965-1995) in Rexburg, Bonneville County, Idaho.  He sexually abused numerous women and children, some as young as 13 – many of whom had told their bishops of his abuse, and over one hundred women reported him also to the Rape Crisis Response Center in Idaho Falls, all to no avail.  Apparently, Dr Withers especially targeted young women away from home for the first time attending the local LDS Ricks College.  One woman first complained about Withers to the State Medical Board (which made a confidential arrangement with Withers, in July 1995, to quietly give up his medical license), then went to Stake President G. Farrell Young, and finally to the Rexburg Police Department.  When Dr Withers was eventually taken to criminal court in 1996 (eight listed victims were children), he was defended by the Church (and Milo Ward Bishop Dean Andrus is said to have obstructed testimony by a victim), and got off with a thirty-day sentence and fine.  In a class action lawsuit subsequently filed in U.S. District Court (Blackfoot, Idaho), Withers,  Madison Memorial Hospital, and Rexburg Medical Center were named as defendants.

Both these cases were fully published years ago, and they are merely single instances in a vast sea of the same sort of thing occurring far and wide in the LDS Church.  Those who are "shocked" that such things take place are not living in the real world.

[Jeanne]

33 minutes ago, cinepro said:

With the recent hubbub about abusive leaders and how the Church members and leaders react (or don't react) to such situations, it might be insightful to study two other well-documented situations in which a Mormon abuser was prominent in his community, and the way the Church leaders and LDS community handled the wolf in their midst.  Both occurred in the 1990s, and the parallels between the situations are striking.

Both are lengthy articles and will take some time to get through.  But I suspect once you start reading, you won't be able to stop.

 

The Fairfield Wives

Fairfield, California, is home to a large Mormon community, and for a long time many of the town's civic leaders have also been local leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Until the recent disclosures that have so disturbed the harmony of this serene and proper town, Dr. John Parkinson was one such leader.

 

 

Shame and Silence in Rexburg (part 1)

For three decades, women whispered about Dr. LaVar Withers' conduct in the examining room. But those who spoke up often were met with official denial. Now an Idaho town's secret has gone public.

(part 2)

 

Read the Fairfield Wives...my mouth is still open..for a multitude of reasons..

[Duncan]

There are so many of these sad cases, the Montana Stake President, in the early 2000's who was soliciting underage girls online, except they were the police so he got busted.

[smac97]

A few thoughts:

1. I have some serious reservations about anecdote-based assessments of the Church's treatment of abuse allegations.  There will always be instances of lapses and errors in judgment, mistakes, misfeasance, nonfeasance, and so on in terms of the LDS Church monitoring the behavior of its members, reporting allegations of misconduct, disciplining members, etc.  However, piling up unverified anecdotes will not give us a clear picture of what is going on.  Unverified anecdotes do much to provoke public ourrage and moral panic, but they do not constitute competent, probative evidence of a systemic problem.

2. I am not discounting the possibility that a systemic problem (principally nonfeasance by the LDS Church re: allegations of abuse).  There may be such a problem.  But anecdotes do not establish that.

3. I am not discounting the need for change in how the LDS Church handles allegations of abuse, and/or the policies pertaining to priesthood leaders interviewing children and women.  Perhaps some changes should be implemented, or at least tested (no-audio CC camera in bishops' offices, for example, or windows in their doors).  But anecdotes do not establish that.

4. There is a serious disparity in the availability of anecdotes that go the other way.  That is, anecdotes where the LDS Church took affirmative steps to discipline members, release leaders for misconduct or nonfeasance in terms of reporting abuse, annotated membership records, and otherwise do what it can with its limited authority, and within the constraints of the law, to address allegations of abuse.  These "other way" anecdotes are not available because they are dog-bites-man stories.  They are not newsworthy or noteworthy.  Moreover, those who are in positions to be aware of such measures generally do not publicize those measures.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2018 by smac97

[bluebell]

I served in Vacaville in 1998 and Fairfield in 1999 and thank goodness this must have largely blown over by then because what a mess!  Just like with the Bishop case, we have got to stop thinking that just because someone has a leadership calling they are above reproach.  

And in general, our society needs to get better at approaching these kinds of issues in a neutral way if we don't have enough actual evidence to make an informed judgment.  Some of those women could have spared themselves a lot of heartache if they hadn't decided that he was innocent before they knew anything about him other than he seemed like a nice guy but mainly had served in leadership positions in the church (and I'm not saying it's their fault that he assaulted them, just that it wasn't smart for them to put so much trust in him given what he was accused of).

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

1. I have some serious reservations about anecdote-based assessments of the Church's treatment of abuse allegations.  There will always be instances of lapses and errors in judgment, mistakes, misfeasance, nonfeasance, and so on in terms of the LDS Church monitoring the behavior of its members, reporting allegations of misconduct, disciplining members, etc.  However, piling up unverified anecdotes will not give us a clear picture of what is going on.  Unverified anecdotes do much to provoke public ourrage and moral panic, but they do not constitute competent, probative evidence of a systemic problem.

2. I am not discounting the possibility that a systemic problem (principally nonfeasance by the LDS Church re: allegations of abuse).  There may be such a problem.  But anecdotes do not establish that.

3. I am not discounting the need for change in how the LDS Church handles allegations of abuse, and/or the policies pertaining to priesthood leaders interviewing children and women.  Perhaps some changes should be implemented, or at least tested (no-audio CC camera in bishops' offices, for example, or windows in their doors).  But anecdotes do not establish that.

4. There is a serious disparity in the availability of anecdotes that go the other way.  That is, anecdotes where the LDS Church took affirmative steps to discipline members, release leaders for misconduct or nonfeasance in terms of reporting abuse, annotated membership records, and otherwise do what it can with its limited authority, and within the constraints of the law, to address allegations of abuse.  These "other way" anecdotes are not available because they are dog-bites-man stories.  They are not newsworthy or noteworthy.  Moreover, those who are in positions to be aware of such measures generally do not publicize those measures.

Thanks,

-Smac

We are stuck with anecdotes as long as there isn't full transparency on these issues.  I suspect you know that.  Also, let's not forget that each "anecdote" represents a real life human being who matters.

Edited March 26, 2018 by ttribe

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

We are stuck with anecdotes as long as there isn't full transparency on these issues.  I suspect you know that. 

"Transparency" is an expectation from civil government.

The Church is materially constrained in many different ways.  It does not function as a civil government.  It does not function as an investigative or law enforcement or intelligence agency of the government.  It lacks the authority of a civil government.  See D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

The Church works hard to comply with the laws of the land.  Are you suggesting that the Church should do more than this?  That the Church should establish itself as an investigative agency?  As a police force?  That it should publish, in the name of "transparency," allegations of abuse received by bishops during pastoral counseling?

Just what are you looking for here?

Quote

Also, let's not forget that each "anecdote" represents a real life human being who matters.

Let's not also forget that each "anecdote" represents only one side of the story.  There are two "real life human being{s}" who matter, the accuser and the accused (and, for that matter, the family members and friends of the accuser and the accused). 

Are you expecting the Church to immediately publish unverified allegations of abuse to the world, including the names of all those involved?

What are you looking for here?  I'm not being obtuse.  I really do not understand what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26, 2018 by smac97

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Transparency" is an expectation from civil government.

The Church is materially constrained in many different ways.  It does not function as a civil government.  It does not function as an investigative or law enforcement or intelligence agency of the government.  It lacks the authority of a civil government.  See D&C 134:10:

The Church works hard to comply with the laws of the land.  Are you suggesting that the Church should do more than this?  That the Church should establish itself as an investigative agency?  As a police force?  That it should publish, in the name of "transparency," allegations of abuse received by bishops during pastoral counseling?

Just what are you looking for here?

Let's not also forget that each "anecdote" represents only one side of the story.  There are two "real life human being{s}" who matter, the accuser and the accused (and, for that matter, the family members and friends of the accuser and the accused). 

Are you expecting the Church to immediately publish unverified allegations of abuse to the world, including the names of all those involved?

What are you looking for here?  I'm not being obtuse.  I really do not understand what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

You certainly don't understand what I was looking for...you stated that you were unwilling to give weight to the stories at hand because they are anecdotal.  I pointed out that they will ALWAYS be anecdotal because that's the existing system (which is unlikely to ever change).  Therefore, it seems to me, that you will NEVER give any weight to these stories because they will forever be anecdotal.  In short, you seem to have created an impossible hurdle to clear for you to take these things seriously.

Edited March 26, 2018 by ttribe

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually there are hundreds of such stories over time, few known to the Mormon community generally:

In the case of John D. Parkinson, M.D., he was stake president in Fairfield (the county seat for Solano County, Calif).  A Mormon woman assembled a list of his sexual abuse and submitted it to higher LDS leaders, but was apparently ignored.  So the case was filed against Dr Parkinson in Solano County Superior Court, and Dr Parkinson eventually lost his license to practice medicine, although he continued to practice anyway – leading to his being found guilty of practicing medicine without a license, etc.

The case of LaVar Withers, M.D., is far more egregious, and extended over a period of thirty years (1965-1995) in Rexburg, Bonneville County, Idaho.  He sexually abused numerous women and children, some as young as 13 – many of whom had told their bishops of his abuse, and over one hundred women reported him also to the Rape Crisis Response Center in Idaho Falls, all to no avail.  Apparently, Dr Withers especially targeted young women away from home for the first time attending the local LDS Ricks College.  One woman first complained about Withers to the State Medical Board (which made a confidential arrangement with Withers, in July 1995, to quietly give up his medical license), then went to Stake President G. Farrell Young, and finally to the Rexburg Police Department.  When Dr Withers was eventually taken to criminal court in 1996 (eight listed victims were children), he was defended by the Church (and Milo Ward Bishop Dean Andrus is said to have obstructed testimony by a victim), and got off with a thirty-day sentence and fine.  In a class action lawsuit subsequently filed in U.S. District Court (Blackfoot, Idaho), Withers,  Madison Memorial Hospital, and Rexburg Medical Center were named as defendants.

Both these cases were fully published years ago, and they are merely single instances in a vast sea of the same sort of thing occurring far and wide in the LDS Church.  Those who are "shocked" that such things take place are not living in the real world.

Dude, spoiler alert...

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You certainly don't understand what I was looking for...

Apparently not.  Hence my requests for clarification.

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

you stated that you were unwilling to give weight to the stories at hand because they are anecdotal. 

I did not say that.  Instead, I said: "Unverified anecdotes do much to provoke public ourrage and moral panic, but they do not constitute competent, probative evidence of a systemic problem."

I also said: "I am not discounting the possibility that a systemic problem (principally nonfeasance by the LDS Church re: allegations of abuse).  There may be such a problem.  But anecdotes do not establish that."

I also said: "I am not discounting the need for change in how the LDS Church handles allegations of abuse, and/or the policies pertaining to priesthood leaders interviewing children and women.  Perhaps some changes should be implemented, or at least tested (no-audio CC camera in bishops' offices, for example, or windows in their doors).  But anecdotes do not establish that."

I also said: "There is a serious disparity in the availability of anecdotes that go the other way."

None of these comments are even close to me saying that I am "unwilling to give weight to the stories at hand because they are anecdotal."

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I pointed out that they will ALWAYS be anecdotal because that's the existing system (which is unlikely to ever change). 

Perhaps some discussion of that system is in order, then.  

What sort of "system" do you want?  Are you expecting the Church to immediately publish unverified allegations of abuse to the world, including the names of all those involved?  What are you looking for here?

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Therefore, it seems to me, that you will NEVER give any weight to these stories because they will forever be anecdotal.

With respect, please stop putting words in my mouth, and instead please answer some pretty basic questions.  Here they are again:

The Church works hard to comply with the laws of the land.  Are you suggesting that the Church should do more than this?  That the Church should establish itself as an investigative agency?  As a police force?  That it should publish, in the name of "transparency," allegations of abuse received by bishops during pastoral counseling?

What sort of "system" do you want?  Are you expecting the Church to immediately publish unverified allegations of abuse to the world, including the names of all those involved?  What are you looking for here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

With the recent hubbub about abusive leaders and how the Church members and leaders react (or don't react) to such situations [...]

Well, the hubbub is certainly recent. The abuse and the actions of the church and the members in these cases, however, are now decades old. 

Shouldn't the church be given credit for the positive steps it has made in dealing with these kinds of situations over the intervening years?

For example, the top google result when I searched for information on the abuse hotline showed that it was established in 1995.

That seems like a really good resource for the church to have made available, in my view. 

 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, the hubbub is certainly recent. The abuse and the actions of the church and the members in these cases, however, are now decades old. 

Shouldn't the church be given credit for the positive steps it has made in dealing with these kinds of situations over the intervening years?

For example, the top google result when I searched for information on the abuse hotline showed that it was established in 1995.

That seems like a really good resource for the church to have made available, in my view. 

 

The hotline is only available to bishops.  I agree it is excellent, but it is also limited in its impact.  There is no real check either if you have a bishop who refuses to use it and doesn't inform the individual that they haven't.  I think it would be very smart if they had a hotline for the general membership so they can direct people to the proper resources. The number should be posted on Church bulletin boards, on church bulletins, on articles dealing with abuse on lds.org, and on the main page of lds.org.  Maybe even have a website devoted to it.

 I know they don't like to duplicate services (and they shouldn't in most cases), but this situation has some unique attributes that merit personal help from the Church, imo.  While there are such government or charitable abuse hotlines pretty much everywhere I have lived (don't know about less developed countries), there will always be those more comfortable going to someone familiar and the Church feels very familiar to most members, we promote the familiar feeling with similar structures, schedules, lessons, titles, etc.  I believe there will be those who will be willing to report to the Church where they won't report to anyone else, including teachers...I can only think of one teacher in all my years of schooling I might have told, but unlikely.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[ttribe]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently not.  Hence my requests for clarification.

I did not say that.  Instead, I said: "Unverified anecdotes do much to provoke public ourrage and moral panic, but they do not constitute competent, probative evidence of a systemic problem."

I also said: "I am not discounting the possibility that a systemic problem (principally nonfeasance by the LDS Church re: allegations of abuse).  There may be such a problem.  But anecdotes do not establish that."

I also said: "I am not discounting the need for change in how the LDS Church handles allegations of abuse, and/or the policies pertaining to priesthood leaders interviewing children and women.  Perhaps some changes should be implemented, or at least tested (no-audio CC camera in bishops' offices, for example, or windows in their doors).  But anecdotes do not establish that."

I also said: "There is a serious disparity in the availability of anecdotes that go the other way."

None of these comments are even close to me saying that I am "unwilling to give weight to the stories at hand because they are anecdotal."

Perhaps some discussion of that system is in order, then.  

What sort of "system" do you want?  Are you expecting the Church to immediately publish unverified allegations of abuse to the world, including the names of all those involved?  What are you looking for here?

With respect, please stop putting words in my mouth, and instead please answer some pretty basic questions.  Here they are again:

The Church works hard to comply with the laws of the land.  Are you suggesting that the Church should do more than this?  That the Church should establish itself as an investigative agency?  As a police force?  That it should publish, in the name of "transparency," allegations of abuse received by bishops during pastoral counseling?

What sort of "system" do you want?  Are you expecting the Church to immediately publish unverified allegations of abuse to the world, including the names of all those involved?  What are you looking for here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, good grief.  Again, every response need not be a fully formed motion for summary judgment, Spencer.  I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

No, I don't think the Church should be an investigative entity.  However, I do think the Church can, and should, improve a number of its procedures for calling leadership.  For example, background checks.  Recording allegations of wrong-doing.  Creating and checking a database of allegations of wrong-doing.  Creating and maintaining programs specifically for victims of abuse within the Church.  All of these things are do-able; afaik, the Church does none of them.

Edited March 26, 2018 by ttribe

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The hotline is only available to bishops.  I think it would be very smart if they had a hotline for the general membership so they can direct people to the proper resources.  While there are such government or charitable abuse hotlines pretty much everywhere I have lived (don't know about less developed countries), there will always be those more comfortable going to someone familiar and the Church feels very familiar to most members, we promote the familiar feeling with similar structures, schedules, lessons, titles, etc.  I believe there will be those who will be willing to report to the Church where they won't report to anyone else, including teachers...I can only think of one teacher in all my years of schooling I might have told, but unlikely.

I've thought this, but Kirton McConkie would be swamped with calls. Not because there are zillions of cases that individuals need to report but their leaders won't, but because . . . people would call it a lot. And how do the lawyers/the Church even begin to investigate the claims that come in through the hotline? It would be a way for people to try to get people into trouble and be vindictive when they are innocent, but it would be impossible to ferret out 100% truth from <100% certainty. Would they just pass on allegations to the police? 

No, it's better to leave the hotline accessible to gatekeepers like bishops and stake presidents. 

I feel bad for how busy they are. I've had a lot of dealings the last two weeks on a non-abuse matter involving local police and FBI seeking testimony from me. Hotline attorneys have been *extremely* helpful. But the sheer workload on things that can't really even begin to be investigated from a general hotline would be staggering. It's much better for access to be limited to priesthood leaders to report abuse concerns through the hotline. 

[Duncan]

members do have a hotline, it's called phoning the Police

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've thought this, but Kirton McConkie would be swamped with calls. Not because there are zillions of cases that individuals need to report but their leaders won't, but because . . . people would call it a lot. And how do the lawyers/the Church even begin to investigate the claims that come in through the hotline? It would be a way for people to try to get people into trouble and be vindictive when they are innocent, but it would be impossible to ferret out 100% truth from <100% certainty. Would they just pass on allegations to the police? 

No, it's better to leave the hotline accessible to gatekeepers like bishops and stake presidents. 

I feel bad for how busy they are. I've had a lot of dealings the last two weeks on a non-abuse matter involving local police and FBI seeking testimony from me. Hotline attorneys have been *extremely* helpful. But the sheer workload on things that can't really even begin to be investigated from a general hotline would be staggering. It's much better for access to be limited to priesthood leaders to report abuse concerns through the hotline. 

If abuse hotlines can function outside the Church, I see no reason why they can't function inside the Church...they could even make an arrangement with a charitable organization to help fund their work while that organization provides trained helpers.

I am not suggesting the hotlines have to be used for investigation, rather they would at the least function as a typical abuse line in directing members to appropriate resources for help.

I am not suggesting opening up the bishop's hotline to general membership,  I am talking about a completely different one.  No legal advice given.

I do believe there needs to be a way for people to report concerns about leaders, possibly a database that keeps tracks of reports, rates them in seriousness where some require automatic investigation by local leaders and other more minor issues that might lead to greater ones trigger investigations if more than one report for a person or ward is made that demonstrates safety policies are not being followed.  I think a dedicated database and department that deals with tracking potential abuse, maybe provides safety training in areas where members have expressed a lot of concerns, follows up with victims if they have been given permission to do so would be an investment that would be wise.  Like financial auditing, it would be best if it involved an outside independent entity overseeing its function.  I am not suggesting it be substituted for police or legal aid, they would direct people to seek that out instead.  I don't see a need to change how things are investigated, rather better ways of sharing knowledge and ensuring that knowledge is being paid attention to.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

members do have a hotline, it's called phoning the Police

They may be nervous about dialing the police.  Lots of people are scared of the police just because they associate them with negative things.  No one likes to get a traffic ticket.  I never have and I still get really nervous when I see a cop car in the rear view mirror...and I have had close cop friends.  If they have a number they see as approved by the Church, they are more likely to call it imo.  It might even be very smart to have it as an independent organization so there can be little claim that helpers might be tempted to tell callers not to report abuse.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, good grief.  Again, every response need not be a fully formed motion for summary judgment, Spencer.  I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

No, I don't think the Church should be an investigative entity.  However, I do think the Church can, and should, improve a number of its procedures for calling leadership.  For example, background checks.  Recording allegations of wrong-doing.  Creating and checking a database of allegations of wrong-doing.  Creating and maintaining programs specifically for victims of abuse within the Church.  All of these things are do-able; afaik, the Church does none of them.

I'm not sure that the Church doesn't vet proposed candidates (including background checks) that need to be approved through the office of the First Presidency. Why does it take a couple of months, barring extreme circumstances?  They check at least record annotations, which are in place if the Church is aware of anything. I know from experience that abuse hotline attorneys can unilaterally annotate records given information on a call, although the usual procedure is for the stake president to request it in writing. They also check tithing history. I wouldn't be surprised at all if criminal or other background checks were undergone.

And like background checks for gun purchases, how many LDS clergy molesters had backgrounds that would have been flagged by law enforcement databases? It seems to me that most/nearly all of the offenders, when it comes to light, had no trackable record.

I'm also beginning to have new respect for the safeguards that have been in place for some time now. The embarrassing media stories I am aware of (including Joseph Bishop) involve things from the 1980s or maybe the 1990s. That's not to say that none are happening now, but it certainly looks like problems that existed were much more a thing from several decades ago.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

If abuse hotlines can function outside the Church, I see no reason why they can't function inside the Church...they could even make an arrangement with a charitable organization to help fund their work while that arganization provides trained helpers.

These are things that should not be going through "trained helpers." 

When you call the hotline, you are screened by a Family Services counselor before being connected to an attorney. This is to ensure that only things that have to be discussed with an attorney get through. So, even the bishops are screened.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

If abuse hotlines can function outside the Church, I see no reason why they can't function inside the Church...they could even make an arrangement with a charitable organization to help fund their work while that arganization provides trained helpers.

When I talk to groups about preventing employee theft I point out that statistics show the number one way a fraud is discovered is through an employee tip (39% of the time); second place isn't even close (16.5%).  I suspect, but don't know, that a tip line for abuse issues could be equally as effective.  There are plenty of third-party providers in this arena, as well, and it isn't particularly expensive.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm not sure that the Church doesn't vet proposed candidates (including background checks) that need to be approved through the office of the First Presidency. Why does it take a couple of months, barring extreme circumstances?  They check at least record annotations, which are in place if the Church is aware of anything. I know from experience that abuse hotline attorneys can unilaterally annotate records given information on a call, although the usual procedure is for the stake president to request it in writing. They also check tithing history. I wouldn't be surprised at all if criminal or other background checks were undergone.

And like background checks for gun purchases, how many LDS clergy molesters had backgrounds that would have been flagged by law enforcement databases? It seems to me that most/nearly all of the offenders, when it comes to light, had no trackable record.

I'm also beginning to have new respect for the safeguards that have been in place for some time now. The embarrassing media stories I am aware of (including Joseph Bishop) involve things from the 1980s or maybe the 1990s. That's not to say that none are happening now, but it certainly looks like problems that existed were much more a thing from several decades ago.

1 - It would be news to me if the Church had a formal system for checking backgrounds, but I would be very happy to be wrong;

2 - I agree there is limited value to background checks, but at least the value is North of zero.

3 - I'm familiar with a number of instances of criminal activity occurring in Church leadership positions (local); not sure the system is all that improved.

[provoman]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

With the recent hubbub about abusive leaders and how the Church members and leaders react (or don't react) to such situations, it might be insightful to study two other well-documented situations in which a Mormon abuser was prominent in his community, and the way the Church leaders and LDS community handled the wolf in their midst.  Both occurred in the 1990s, and the parallels between the situations are striking.

Both are lengthy articles and will take some time to get through.  But I suspect once you start reading, you won't be able to stop.

 

The Fairfield Wives

Fairfield, California, is home to a large Mormon community, and for a long time many of the town's civic leaders have also been local leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Until the recent disclosures that have so disturbed the harmony of this serene and proper town, Dr. John Parkinson was one such leader.

 

 

Shame and Silence in Rexburg (part 1)

For three decades, women whispered about Dr. LaVar Withers' conduct in the examining room. But those who spoke up often were met with official denial. Now an Idaho town's secret has gone public.

(part 2)

 

 It is about 15+ pages of readings.

Do you believe that the direction from COB affected the outcomes of either case?

Edited March 26, 2018 by provoman

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

When I talk to groups about preventing employee theft I point out that statistics show the number one way a fraud is discovered is through an employee tip (39% of the time); second place isn't even close (16.5%).  I suspect, but don't know, that a tip line for abuse issues could be equally as effective.  There are plenty of third-party providers in this arena, as well, and it isn't particularly expensive.

What if someone with an ax to grind, though, called and reported that Bishop rongo had raped her, or that he had molested her son. Let's say that it is completely untrue; that there is not a shred of truth to it. What investigations or clouds of suspicion are launched through that? 

My county has this happening right now. An LDS judge has been accused of molesting a twelve year-old girl thirteen years ago (the accuser is 25). He has no record of anything, but is on leave and under investigation. He completely passed an in-depth polygraph through a licensed polygraph firm. There is no evidence, other than the woman's story and his denial. Will he be reinstated? Will he be under a cloud forever? 

I can think of people who are unhappy with their bishops for other reasons, but who would seize the opportunity to turn them in for something serious through a tip line.  

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

1 - It would be news to me if the Church had a formal system for checking backgrounds, but I would be very happy to be wrong;

I don't think we have any way of knowing or finding out for sure.

2 - I agree there is limited value to background checks, but at least the value is North of zero.

That's true.