Were you taught not to go to the police?

[provoman]

A victim of abuse has stated “We are taught in the church, we don’t go to police,”

 

I was never taught “we don’t go to police”, were any of you?

And I dont mean an instance after abuse was reported.

The statement clearly indicates the LDS people “are taught”, as a people, to not go to police when abuse occurs.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, provoman said:

A victim of abuse has stated “We are taught in the church, we don’t go to police,”

 

I was never taught “we don’t go to police”, were any of you?

And I dont mean an instance after abuse was reported.

The statement clearly indicates the LDS people “are taught”, as a people, to not go to police when abuse occurs.

I don't believe it's openly taught of course.

That doesn't change the fact that many church members go directly to their church leaders first (to get counsel as to how to proceed from there).  I've seen this happen so many times that I know many believe they first go to their Bishop.

I personally know of way too many instances where no police were called in after a member reported abuse as well.  The perpetrator (especially if an active member of the church) is first called in and even if they confess, are many times worked with privately to repent and no call is ever made to the police.  That is what needs to stop.

Of course, I know that there are cases where the police are called.  That needs to become EVERY time abuse is reported though.

Edited April 5, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, provoman said:

A victim of abuse has stated “We are taught in the church, we don’t go to police,”

I was never taught “we don’t go to police”, were any of you?

And I dont mean an instance after abuse was reported.

The statement clearly indicates the LDS people “are taught”, as a people, to not go to police when abuse occurs.

Nope.  Never experienced that.  Never heard it in any way.

But it makes the LDS Church look bad, so . . . 

-Smac

[Garden Girl]

I was never taught such a thing... and have not currently seen or heard such an attitude.  In fact, before he retired a few years ago our Lincoln City police chief was our bishop... and two of the ward brothers were officers in the local and state police.  Just this past week another of our ward's long time officers has been named Lincoln City's interim police chief while a search is made for a permanent hire... in fact with his experience and rapport with the officers, he could very well become the Chief.  There's many a Sunday when these brothers attend Sacrament in full uniform, take sacrament, and then leave for their shift...

GG

Edited April 5, 2018 by Garden Girl

[Duncan]

When what happened to me hit the fan, no mention of the police but I found out later that the person was disciplined so TBH I didn't care that much really. Now, yeah, if you break the law the police should be involved

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't believe it's openly taught of course.

I'm not persuaded it's privately taught, either.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That doesn't change the fact that many church members go directly to their church leaders first (to get counsel as to how to proceed from there).

But are bishops systematically and affirmatively telling members to not talk to police?

Um, no.  I feel pretty comfortable in saying that.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've seen this happen so many times that I know many believe they first go to their Bishop.

Strange.  I have spent nearly 40 years living in Utah County, the heart of Mormondom.  I know hundreds upon hundreds of Mormons.  I've never known a single person who has said they were told not to talk to the police. 

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I personally know of way too many instances where no police were called in after a member reported abuse as well.

So do I.  But I do not know of a single instance where that occurred at the advice of a bishop to not talk to the police.  Not once.

I think some bishops may be taking it upon themselves to tell members of their wards to not talk to the police.  If so, that is unfortunate.  But I'm skeptical that this is some sort of systemic, widespread sort of thing.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The perpetrator (especially if an active member of the church) is first called in and even if they confess, are many times worked with privately to repent and no call is ever made to the police.  That is what needs to stop.

I think the decision to call the police, or not, lies principally with the individual, not with the bishop. 

The bishop should follow the law and report allegations of abuse, but there are constraints on that which you seem to be ignoring.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course, I know that there are cases where the police are called.  That needs to become EVERY time abuse is reported though.

Every time?  How do you propose to treat the priest/penitent privilege?

And what about the right of the victim to make that choice?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

I know of a case of child abuse where the mother went to the Bishop first (it was her husband, a step father of the child doing the abusing).  The Bishop called in the husband that night and he broke down, cried, confessed and promised never to do it again.

The Bishop sent them all back home together.  He never called the police.  

A month later, this man (who taught primary) was caught inappropriately touching little boys in his class.  He was released, but still no police called.

I know the mother and parents of the boys should have called the police, but they all said they knew and trusted that they should let the Bishop handle it as their church leader.

This family eventually moved and they got divorced.  But he was never removed from the home until then.

Members (some) just believe they should first tell their Bishop about any abuse or any personal problems in their home.  

But I think that’s changing and it should!  Call the police first and then counsel with your leaders!!!

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not persuaded it's privately taught, either.

But are bishops systematically and affirmatively telling members to not talk to police?

Um, no.  I feel pretty comfortable in saying that.

Strange.  I have spent nearly 40 years living in Utah County, the heart of Mormondom.  I know hundreds upon hundreds of Mormons.  I've never known a single person who has said they were told not to talk to the police. 

So do I.  But I do not know of a single instance where that occurred at the advice of a bishop to not talk to the police.  Not once.

I think some bishops may be taking it upon themselves to tell members of their wards to not talk to the police.  If so, that is unfortunate.  But I'm skeptical that this is some sort of systemic, widespread sort of thing.

I think the decision to call the police, or not, lies principally with the individual, not with the bishop. 

The bishop should follow the law and report allegations of abuse, but there are constraints on that which you seem to be ignoring.

Every time?  How do you propose to treat the priest/penitent privilege?

And what about the right of the victim to make that choice?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not doing this dance with you today smac.  

I related my personal experiences and observations with how often the police are not called in.  I believe that many members go first to their church leaders in an effort to handle any abuse privately.  I stated that it is not taught by our leaders to do this.  But it still happens too often.

As others have expressed, I hope this changes dramatically and that all members go directly to the police when abuse happens (or alleged abuse).  Report to the police first....period.

Edited April 5, 2018 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, provoman said:

A victim of abuse has stated “We are taught in the church, we don’t go to police,”

 

I was never taught “we don’t go to police”, were any of you?

And I dont mean an instance after abuse was reported.

The statement clearly indicates the LDS people “are taught”, as a people, to not go to police when abuse occurs.

Never heard anything of the sort. 

[Exiled]

34 minutes ago, provoman said:

A victim of abuse has stated “We are taught in the church, we don’t go to police,”

 

I was never taught “we don’t go to police”, were any of you?

And I dont mean an instance after abuse was reported.

The statement clearly indicates the LDS people “are taught”, as a people, to not go to police when abuse occurs.

When Poelman's brother was caught with prostitutes and subsequently released from being a Stake President and fired from Kirton McConkie, E. Packer went to the stake conference where the new pres was called and counseled the stake membership to keep things in house.  There was a pedo in my stake growing up and he was caught with some teenagers in the stake.  I was a witness, but not a victim, and the stake president counseled me personally to let the church handle it and not to say anything to anyone.  Finally, one of my friends growing up (his grandfather was a G.A.) had an incident happen to him and another friend at the old deseret gym (owned by the church).  It involved a different pedo and he was counseled not to talk about it and that E. Mark E. Peterson would personally see to it that the problem was resolved.

You and your friend Smac97 can continue to deny that this counseling never went on or doesn't happen today.  But if you continue to do so, you will only make yourselves look bad and offend many.  So, why don't you just stop with the nonsense.

I will help you out.  Just chalk it up to yet another time when men were acting as men and not the inspired leaders you admire and overly defend to the point of silliness. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not doing this dance with you today smac.  

The "dance" being . . . discussion?  Exchanging viewpoints?

As you like.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I related my personal experiences and observations with how often the police are not called in. 

So did I.  So I'm not sure why you are getting huffy.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe that many members go first to their church leaders in an effort to handle any abuse privately. 

Yes, I have seen that.  But what I have not seen is bishops counseling members to not talk to the police.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I stated that it is not taught by our leaders to do this.  But it still happens too often.

"It still happens too often?"  "It" being bishops counseling members to not talk to the police about abuse?  I question how widespread that is.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As others have expressed, I hope this changes dramatically and that all members go directly to the police when abuse happens (or alleged abuse).  Report to the police first....period.

Actually, bishops can be an extremely effective resource for helping people get abuse reported.  That is, talking to a spiritual advisor may make a person more inclined to report to the police, not less.  And then there are laws that require bishops to report allegations of abuse in some circumstances, and such reports are made quite a bit (per instructions and training from the Church).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, provoman said:

A victim of abuse has stated “We are taught in the church, we don’t go to police,”

 

I was never taught “we don’t go to police”, were any of you?

And I dont mean an instance after abuse was reported.

The statement clearly indicates the LDS people “are taught”, as a people, to not go to police when abuse occurs.

No, this is not taught. In fact if you confess a crime, you are encouraged to go to the police. If the crime is against someone and puts someone's safety in jeopardy, the Bishop required to contact the police. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

When Poelman's brother was caught with prostitutes and subsequently released from being a Stake President and fired from Kirton McConkie,

And excommunicated, if I understand correctly.  Why'd you omit that bit?

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

E. Packer went to the stake conference where the new pres was called and counseled the stake membership to keep things in house. 

CFR, please.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

There was a pedo in my stake growing up and he was caught with some teenagers in the stake.  I was a witness, but not a victim, and the stake president counseled me personally to let the church handle it and not to say anything to anyone. 

That is disturbing and wrong.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Finally, one of my friends growing up (his grandfather was a G.A.) had an incident happen to him and another friend at the old deseret gym (owned by the church).  It involved a different pedo and he was counseled not to talk about it and that E. Mark E. Peterson would personally see to it that the problem was resolved.

Anonymous anecdotes based on multiple hearsay don't hold much sway with me.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

You and your friend Smac97 can continue to deny that this counseling never went on or doesn't happen today. 

I'm not denying it.  I'm questioning if it is a systemic, widespread sort of thing.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

But if you continue to do so, you will only make yourselves look bad and offend many.  So, why don't you just stop with the nonsense.

"'Shut up,' he explained."

Wow.

-Smac

[Calm]

Never taught that at church or home, never heard it from someone else in offline.

Otoh, I know of nonChurch members as well as church members who were ashamed and told no one (actually know more men in this situation than women) at all until adults and then they just told parents, siblings, or spouses.

I can understand a desire to go to someone who is seen as a familiar protective figure, the Bishop or other church leader, who you know has a quiet, comfortable room for a private conversation rather than walking into a police station where most likely knowledge comes strictly from TV as a loud, crowded place where it is hard to get anyone's attention and for a private conversation you get to talk in the interrogation rooms (I have no clue if this reflects reality never needing to hit a police station, but it certainly reflects the DMVs I have been in and every other government office including consulates).

And it is easy to believe given my awareness of my grandparents' generation, that there would be many bishops and church leaders who were raised in a "we don't talk about sexual assault" environment as pregnant girls were sent to a special high school at least to the 70s even in the San Fran area where talk about sex of all kinds was quite open. So I don't doubt there may have been bishops who believed it was better for all involved to keep it quiet and either pushed for that or were easily persuaded by parents' anxiety about their child having to talk about it and wanting for it to be over to suggest it...and given the trauma the victims and their families were under, it is also easy to see they might be very grateful for someone else to make the decisions for them at that time of extreme vulnerability.

I think the only way to avoid these suppressions is to make it as much as a nobrainer to go to police or doctors to report as it is for a broken leg, but neither our Church community nor the greater society is close to that.  And all the media that draws attention to the problem is going to increase anxiety as well as increasing awareness so it is going to take some time to get there, imo.

It needs to be pounded into Bishops and leaders to call hotlines.  I think Church hotlines need to be open up to more than bishops because they won't be the only leaders told of abuse and the other leaders will have even less training.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Calm

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

When Poelman's brother was caught with prostitutes and subsequently released from being a Stake President and fired from Kirton McConkie, E. Packer went to the stake conference where the new pres was called and counseled the stake membership to keep things in house.  There was a pedo in my stake growing up and he was caught with some teenagers in the stake.  I was a witness, but not a victim, and the stake president counseled me personally to let the church handle it and not to say anything to anyone.  Finally, one of my friends growing up (his grandfather was a G.A.) had an incident happen to him and another friend at the old deseret gym (owned by the church).  It involved a different pedo and he was counseled not to talk about it and that E. Mark E. Peterson would personally see to it that the problem was resolved.

You and your friend Smac97 can continue to deny that this counseling never went on or doesn't happen today.  But if you continue to do so, you will only make yourselves look bad and offend many.  So, why don't you just stop with the nonsense.

I will help you out.  Just chalk it up to yet another time when men were acting as men and not the inspired leaders you admire and overly defend to the point of silliness. 

Wow, "men acting as men", yes indeed let's continue to reinforce the narrative that all men are evil, and all men are predators. More faceless, nameless indictments that cannot be proven, that paint all Preisthood holders with the same broad brush. The only names you wish to give are the GA's you blame, but none of the names, dates, and faces of these "men acting as men". Your cheap shot is noted, we "men" are all evil, and the Church most of all. Does that sum up your accusations? 

[JulieM]

I’ve actually never heard it taught (from the pulpit or in a lesson or talk) that members should go directly to the police before going to their Bishop either.

I've heard nothing taught really.  But I know there is info online for members to look up and read.

Maybe this needs to be more actively and vocally taught?

[Exiled]

10 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Wow, "men acting as men", yes indeed let's continue to reinforce the narrative that all men are evil, and all men are predators. More faceless, nameless indictments that cannot be proven, that paint all Preisthood holders with the same broad brush. The only names you wish to give are the GA's you blame, but none of the names, dates, and faces of these "men acting as men". Your cheap shot is noted, we "men" are all evil, and the Church most of all. Does that sum up your accusations? 

I know it's hard to hear and deal with reality at times.

[provoman]

27 minutes ago, Exiled said:

When Poelman's brother was caught with prostitutes and subsequently released from being a Stake President and fired from Kirton McConkie, E. Packer went to the stake conference where the new pres was called and counseled the stake membership to keep things in house.  There was a pedo in my stake growing up and he was caught with some teenagers in the stake.  I was a witness, but not a victim, and the stake president counseled me personally to let the church handle it and not to say anything to anyone.  Finally, one of my friends growing up (his grandfather was a G.A.) had an incident happen to him and another friend at the old deseret gym (owned by the church).  It involved a different pedo and he was counseled not to talk about it and that E. Mark E. Peterson would personally see to it that the problem was resolved.

You and your friend Smac97 can continue to deny that this counseling never went on or doesn't happen today.  But if you continue to do so, you will only make yourselves look bad and offend many.  So, why don't you just stop with the nonsense.

I will help you out.  Just chalk it up to yet another time when men were acting as men and not the inspired leaders you admire and overly defend to the point of silliness. 

You are demanding that I not ask a question. And you are demanding that I not share my personal experience. Yeah not gonna happen.

And if you read my first post understanding rather than what seems to be offended, you would understand it was an open general question. And it should be understood that implicit in the first post is what Alarson posted about, and to some degree what you posted about.

 

What the woman stated was that “we are taught” that suggests it is an ongoing Officially taught position of the Church.

[Exiled]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And excommunicated, if I understand correctly.  Why'd you omit that bit?

CFR, please.

That is disturbing and wrong.

Anonymous anecdotes based on multiple hearsay don't hold much sway with me.

I'm not denying it.  I'm questioning if it is a systemic, widespread sort of thing.

"'Shut up,' he explained."

Wow.

-Smac

I know, I know ... no true mormon leader would ever tell someone to not go to the police so the leader can handle it internally. So it didn't happen then and doesn't happen now.

[Prof]

I have no experience one way or the other with the OPs original question. 

However, if something happened to one of my loved ones, and the Bishop suggested "Let's take care of this internally", it would not go over very well, putting it mildly.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I know, I know ... no true mormon leader would ever tell someone to not go to the police so the leader can handle it internally. 

Never said nor implied this.

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So it didn't happen then and doesn't happen now.

Never said nor implied this.

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’ve actually never heard it taught (from the pulpit or in a lesson or talk) that members should go directly to the police before going to their Bishop either.

I've heard nothing taught really.  But I know there is info online for members to look up and read.

Maybe this needs to be more actively and vocally taught?

You make an excellent point.  More needs to be taught regarding this.   

The OP asked if anyone was taught to go to their leaders before they go to the police (or not to even go to the police). 

The real truth is that when abuse happens, many members do not know how to handle it (especially if the abuse happened at church, or on a church activity, or in a member's home or by another church member).  So many just automatically go straight to their Bishop for help and advice.  Too often it is handled in house (the calling the alleged abuser in and helping them confess and repent) from there.

Things are really changing though and I believe many more members (and most especially leaders) know that it's important to report the crime and allow the police to investigate from there.

I agree with you that more needs to be a taught regarding what members should do when abuse is suspected.  We can't just assume that every one of them knows to go to the police before contacting their Bishop.

Edited April 5, 2018 by ALarson

[juliann]

The problem with this is that we are talking about decades ago. We didn’t talk about sexual assault much at all. But we were taught to not sue people. I heard many talks about people taking a financial hit rather than turning in another member. Elder Oaks wrote a book with such leagal advice, clarifying that if an offender could harm others then it was justified to go after them, even an obligation, if the victim had the finances to do it. 

So I do think it isn’t unreasonable to say we were expected to try to resolve things through church resources in the era she speaks of even though it wasn’t as in your face as “don’t call the police.”  It didn’t need to be. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I know it's hard to hear and deal with reality at times.

You don't know me, nor what is hard for me to hear. So please do not assume you know me, nor my ability to deal with reality. I am on the side of the women who was raped by John Bishop, and find it as abhorrent as anyone. It is your comments that I find offensive, and your alleged comments and actions of others, willing to name no one but GA's, whom you claim to have taught others to not report crimes. I have served in many leadership positions in my 39 years of membership. In that time, no one, no leadership book, no lesson and no conference talk have ever suggested that crimes not be reported, and to be handled "in house". In fact, as a retired police officer, I would not only have taken issue with someone being told not to report a crime, but if in my jurisdiction, I would have arrested anyone for withholding a crime, as doing so is a crime itself. So, if I had ever been told to not report a crime, I would have been required to repost anyone who did so to the proper authorities.

The only reality here, is how so many wish to pile on to serve their agendas, and your agenda of putting all men, especially those who serve in the Church on the same level as the man who raped this young missionary. So forgive me, I am not buying what you are trying to sell. But, my "troll antenna", are out and working. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not persuaded it's privately taught, either.

But are bishops systematically and affirmatively telling members to not talk to police?

Um, no.  I feel pretty comfortable in saying that.

Strange.  I have spent nearly 40 years living in Utah County, the heart of Mormondom.  I know hundreds upon hundreds of Mormons.  I've never known a single person who has said they were told not to talk to the police. 

So do I.  But I do not know of a single instance where that occurred at the advice of a bishop to not talk to the police.  Not once.

I think some bishops may be taking it upon themselves to tell members of their wards to not talk to the police.  If so, that is unfortunate.  But I'm skeptical that this is some sort of systemic, widespread sort of thing.

I think the decision to call the police, or not, lies principally with the individual, not with the bishop. 

The bishop should follow the law and report allegations of abuse, but there are constraints on that which you seem to be ignoring.

Every time?  How do you propose to treat the priest/penitent privilege?

And what about the right of the victim to make that choice?

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess you haven't heard that political correctness demands exact rules for everything. Without that people could actually be Politically Incorrect and you know what that means.