Were you taught not to go to the police?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I have had personal experiences with leaders wanting to hush things up and I took issue with the defense of "if it didn't happen to me then it must not have happened in case x." This defense seems to be used when someone brings up unpleasant anecdotes that some don't want to hear and is seemingly the main defense used when people complain about being misled about history. So, to answer your question, I guess I'm adding my voice in support of the existence of cover-ups. I am a witness to them as church reputation always seems to come first.

If you don't wish to hear it, then you can always ignore it.

But no one here is actually saying that from what I recall, certainly not Papa.  They are just saying it didn't happened to them, which they have as much right to do as the people who say it did happen to them.

People telling their personal experiences gives a picture of how widespread a practice might likely be.

If a lot more people say if didnt happened to them than it did, then it suggests that it wasn't that common, but it doesn't demonstrate it never happened.  Nor does it suggest nothing be done to stop any amount of such behaviour.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

But no one here is actually saying that from what I recall, certainly not Papa.  They are just saying it didn't happened to them, which they have as much right to do as the people who say it did happen to them.

People telling their personal experiences gives a picture of how widespread a practice might likely be.

If a lot more people say if didnt happened to them than it did, then it suggests that it wasn't that common, but it doesn't demonstrate it never happened.  Nor does it suggest nothing be done to stop any amount of such behaviour.

I think one would expect a big majority of the mormon population hasn't personally experienced the cover-up issue. I think I am on safe ground saying that the sexual predator population among mormons is small. This is why these cases are so shocking. So, is it helpful for one to say it hasn't happened to one? To me, it is like someone coming to a bishop and saying that she was raped and the bishop remarking that he has never been raped. Of course and now what?  How about just deal with the issue? Agreeing with thine adversary blunts thine adversary's invective and just might generate some understanding?

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think one would expect a big majority of the mormon population hasn't personally experienced the cover-up issue. I think I am on safe ground saying that the sexual predator population among mormons is small. This is why these cases are so shocking. So, is it helpful for one to say it hasn't happened to one? To me, it is like someone coming to a bishop and saying that she was raped and the bishop remarking that he has never been raped. Of course and now what?  How about just deal with the issue? Agreeing with thine adversary blunts thine adversary's invective and just might generate some understanding?

However, if the community was being taught in general not to go to the police, than it wouldn't be a small percentage and this was the question being asked.   Encountering individuals who, when confronted with abuse, attempt to persuade one not to go to the police is very different than having it as a widespread cultural teaching.  It is not about encountering actual coverups, but alleged teachings that contribute to the willingness to participate in one.

Yes, if someone was reporting because they needed to talk about it or for something to be done, it would be wrong to respond by saying "it hasn't happened to me".  On the other hand, reading a comment elsewhere about it and then bringing it to the board specifically to find out how widespread the behaviour is, that is a very different context and attempts to share personal experiences in order to answer the question shouldn't be suppressed because it would be wrong to say the same thing in another setting.

I don't think there is a cultural feeling of don't go to the police ever.  I do think there is a cultural mentality of being kind, compassionate, and forgiving to those that commit offenses against one.  That might contribute, but Ireally think the only way to be sure our cultural teachings contribute to nonreporting is through statistical reporting because we also have theprinciple of accountability and restitution which might influence a higher reporting, plus there is a support system that might lead to greater or lesser reporting (the support is there which helps feel less vulnerable, so more report or support may be seen as likely withdrawn if involving others, so less reporting).

Edited April 6, 2018 by Calm

[Gray]

I don't recall being taught that exactly, but I definitely got the message that we were to go to the bishop first for just about anything.

[clarkgoble]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't recall being taught that exactly, but I definitely got the message that we were to go to the bishop first for just about anything.

I wonder if there's a generational gap here. One person mentioned Mark E Peterson which makes me think we're talking a long. long time ago. 

Ignoring the abuse angle for a moment, at one time the Church encouraged people to work things out via the Bishop. That slowly changed for various reasons starting in the early 20th century - primarily what we'd call civil law suits. (See this paper of Nate's for a good overview). People who in the 70's were already fairly old would likely have grown up in this earlier practice where using the courts was still often frowned upon (but becoming more common). The 60's and 70's would have been the really big transition period getting everyone to use the courts first. (Prior to that there was a push for courts, but it remained complex in practice although Nate primarily doesn't focus on the 20th century) There was an other paper on this I can't seem to find right now that looked at shifts and tensions in the mid-20th century over using courts verses church. Again, this could apply to fairly benign issues like property lines or other sorts of things I've seen just in my own ward leading to tensions.

Anyway, while I'm sure there are regional variations, I can't imagine not going to the police first over a criminal matter. Even most civil matters, while I'd try to resolve things with the people by talking, if it breaks down I'd go to the courts not the Bishop. I'm surprised anyone even thinks different anymore. And I just turned 50.

Edited April 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

However, if the community was being taught in general not to go to the police, than it wouldn't be a small percentage and this was the question being asked.   Encountering individuals who, when confronted with abuse, attempt to persuade one not to go to the police is very different than having it as a widespread cultural teaching.  It is not about encountering actual coverups, but alleged teachings that contribute to the willingness to participate in one.

Yes, if someone was reporting because they needed to talk about it or for something to be done, it would be wrong to respond by saying "it hasn't happened to me".  On the other hand, reading a comment elsewhere about it and then bringing it to the board specifically to find out how widespread the behaviour is, that is a very different context and attempts to share personal experiences in order to answer the question shouldn't be suppressed because it would be wrong to say the same thing in another setting.

I don't think there is a cultural feeling of don't go to the police ever.  I do think there is a cultural mentality of being kind, compassionate, and forgiving to those that commit offenses against one.  That might contribute, but Ireally think the only way to be sure our cultural teachings contribute to nonreporting is through statistical reporting because we also have theprinciple of accountability and restitution which might influence a higher reporting, plus there is a support system that might lead to greater or lesser reporting (the support is there which helps feel less vulnerable, so more report or support may be seen as likely withdrawn if involving others, so less reporting).

I have to agree with grey that there is a message of going to the bishop first. Unfortunately, in some cases, the bishop, maybe in conjunction with the stake president and maybe higher ups convey that it would be better to handle things internally to protect the church from those who just want to tear the church down and use the isolated incident as a weapon against the church. So, as the reasoning goes, it is best that the inspired leaders use their spiritual powers to come up with a good solution while protecting the good name of the church.

Additionally, what does saying that the above hasn't happened to some poster even do other than maybe give the false impression that the problem is one of statistics and that an isolated incident of cover up isn't that bad because it isn't happenong all the time or most of the time, but only in isolated cases? The problem is that it happens at all. So, in my opinion, it doesn't really matter that smac97 or provoman or you haven't experienced it. It happened and probably will happen again unless a spotlight is shone on the problem. Also, the cover-up is problematic because it stunts the motivation for change and allows a false sense that there isn't a problem when there is one.

[Exiled]

27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I wonder if there's a generational gap here. One person mentioned Mark E Peterson which makes me think we're talking a long. long time ago. 

Ignoring the abuse angle for a moment, at one time the Church encouraged people to work things out via the Bishop. That slowly changed for various reasons starting in the early 20th century - primarily what we'd call civil law suits. (See this paper of Nate's for a good overview). People who in the 70's were already fairly old would likely have grown up in this earlier practice where using the courts was still often frowned upon (but becoming more common). The 60's and 70's would have been the really big transition period getting everyone to use the courts first. (Prior to that there was a push for courts, but it remained complex in practice although Nate primarily doesn't focus on the 20th century) There was an other paper on this I can't seem to find right now that looked at shifts and tensions in the mid-20th century over using courts verses church. Again, this could apply to fairly benign issues like property lines or other sorts of things I've seen just in my own ward leading to tensions.

Anyway, while I'm sure there are regional variations, I can't imagine not going to the police first over a criminal matter. Even most civil matters, while I'd try to resolve things with the people by talking, if it breaks down I'd go to the courts not the Bishop. I'm surprised anyone even thinks different anymore. And I just turned 50.

The Bishop matter just happened and the church just tried to smear the victim .... you do realize this right?

[clarkgoble]

Just now, Exiled said:

The Bishop matter just happened and the church just tried to smear the victim .... you do realize this right?

I think you think I'm referring to something other than I am.

[Exiled]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think you think I'm referring to something other than I am.

I don't think these issues can be lessened by declaring your belief that times have changed or by pointing to the fact that church members no longer go to the bishop to resolve ownership of cattle or milk strippings. Members still talk to the bishop first on many, many things because the bishop supposedly is inspired to solve problems. Why do you think E. Ballard had to point out in a speech not too long ago that the members shouldn't think the leaders are experts in everything or even most things and should go to others for advice when appropriate?

[carbon dioxide]

10 hours 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.

CTR class Lesson 4 I believe

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Additionally, what does saying that the above hasn't happened to some poster even do other than maybe give the false impression that the problem is one of statistics and that an isolated incident of cover up isn't that bad because it isn't happenong all the time or most of the time, but only in isolated cases? The problem is that it happens at all. So, in my opinion, it doesn't really matter that smac97 or provoman or you haven't experienced it. It happened and probably will happen again unless a spotlight is shone on the problem. 

Because when you are addressing problems, it is important to know how widespread an issue it is, how it is communicated and who to, and other statistics so that one can design the best way to target the ones who are doing wrong, the best way to get the message out there.  If there are people that are going "that doesn't apply to me" when it comes to church policies (such as using the hotline), then it is better to know who they likely are and why they are doing it, than just drop an instruction for everyone...because that is what has already been done and these people are ignoring it...so why believe doing the same thing would be successful this time around?

[thatjimguy]

I've read somewhere that Mormons don't sue Mormons. That it is better to try to deal with the problem by the spirit instead. Can't recall where I read it though. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

I've read somewhere that Mormons don't sue Mormons. That it is better to try to deal with the problem by the spirit instead. Can't recall where I read it though. 

We do, just most of us probably hate doing it, so it happens less than it probably should.

[Somebodyz]

We've had different experiences based on who was Bishop at the time. I was taught, go to the police if the law is broken, but also go to the Bishop.  We don't choose which laws we follow. 

 Most Bishops step up. I've seen one Bishop, who let things slide, until they couldn't. The person involved was loved by many in the ward and tricked many when hiding his behaviours. Bishops are human, humans make mistakes, have flaws and weaknesses. Perhaps sometimes they mix up forgiving, and the order it should be done in. Confessing and going to the police is part of that process.

The Church isn't to blame.

[Calm]

"We don't choose which laws we follow. "

Just for clarification please, are you talking about God's laws as well as civil laws or just one or the other?

[mnn727]

In my 25 years as a member, in 3 different states and 6 different Wards,  I have never heard that once.

[Prof]

My opinion, for what it is worth is this:

If a bishop learns of something during a confession, he is bound to keep that confidential. I like the Catholic model. I have seen some bishops in my ward recently who were not so good at keeping things confidential, although these things weren't near the types of things one would go to the police about.

If a bishop learns of something outside of the confession, he is not bound to keep that confidential. If it is serious, it should be reported.

No one else is bound by confidentiality, including the victim. If anything, you may be bound by law to report it depending on the nature of the matter. 

I think it is great if a leader can arbitrate some of the petty squabbles that come up from time to time. But anything more serious should be reported, and no one should feel pressure not to report it. 

I have not been involved in any such matters. If I were and I were pressured not to report it, I would disregard that pressure and do what is right by reporting it. Men on Earth might not be happy with that, but I think that is what Christ would want me to do. I will trust His judgement.

[CA Steve]

What did the victim mean by "taught in church"?

Was she (I am assuming it's a she) talking about a formal setting like the classroom or over the pulpit?

Or is this just a general reference to lessons learned over the years as a "member in the church"?

In over five decades as a member I have never ever anywhere in a formal setting directly heard someone say go to the bishop first as if the police were a second choice or to be avoided.

But if the reference here is that quietly, in one on one interviews and discussions or even in small groups she learned to go to the bishop and not the police, then I too have heard that directly a few times and anecdotally many times, especially when it came to a wife being abused. 

[Danzo]

I wonder if Utah has a lower percentage of police reports/crime prosecutions than other states.

Are police in Utah less busy because none of the Mormons are reporting crimes?

Do they have to rely on a network of non Mormons or disaffected Mormons to investigate crime?

Is Utah less safe than other states because of all of the unreported criminal activity?

[MorningStar]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In some circles, that’s called co-dependency.

Yes, it's very frustrating. Just dealt with a sexual harassment situation in our choir and while some of us were anxious to kick the man out as soon as possible, others were saying it was a great place for him to learn boundaries. Most aggravating thing I have ever experienced. The women involved appealed it and now he's gone, but it took two months. The consequences should have been immediate and swift, but it just dragged it out for everyone involved and gave him false hope, which left me feeling terrified because of his violent online rants. I know the man's daughter and although she didn't know about the situation, she had expressed to me that he chooses not to learn and that in his 55+ years, he should know better by now. These well-meaning people believe for some reason that no one ever took him under their wing and explained what appropriate behavior is. He can't keep a job for a reason and I'm sure he has been told why. Close relatives including his parents have cut ties because of his behavior, yet people think no one ever told him how he was affecting others?  His daughter told him bluntly that she unfollowed him on Facebook and why, but rather than learn, he acted like a victim. He also knows his daughters hate his brother with a passion because he talks about their bodies. But he doesn't know he shouldn't talk about women's bodies or touch them?

In the end he was dismissed, but as I expected, a few people are mad at me and at least one never wants to speak to me again because I didn't handle it in a "Christlike" way. According to them.  In almost 5 years they only knew me as nice, agreeable, cooperative, etc., but then that man groped two of my friends and mama bear appeared. My 9-year-old daughter was also rehearsing in the building. He never paid attention to one of my friends until her daughters joined the children's chorus and then suddenly he was messaging her asking when he could come over and meet the whole family. I saw him hassling a 15-year-old girl on Facebook the same way he was with multiple women. "Did you get my private message? Did you check your inbox?"  Private messaging a minor!!! I spent 12 hours writing my appeal letter and told them keeping in the organization was a legal death wish. 

I know people have good intentions, but UGH!!! What in the heck. This should have been maybe a 3 day investigation tops with over a dozen women complaining and others expressing just a general creeped out feeling. Hundreds of hours of precious time were devoted to that guy. Hopefully he'll finally get help, but I still see him bothering one of my friends who is a public figure. She ignores his private messages and then he'll leave a comment, "Did you get my PM?"  She has literally ignored his messages for months and other women have flat out asked him to stop messaging them. He doesn't learn and his opportunities to bother women should be as limited as possible. Yes, people will still have to deal with him at church, but being in a choir is not a right. 

The two women who were groped both initially told themselves, "Uhhhh .... maybe it was an accident?" Because they're nice and want to believe the best about people and men like him choose nice victims. I would have called him out loudly and called the police, without consulting anyone because I wouldn't give them the opportunity to tell me that's not Christlike. Groping people isn't Christlike! 

[juliann]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

What did the victim mean by "taught in church"?

Was she (I am assuming it's a she) talking about a formal setting like the classroom or over the pulpit?

Or is this just a general reference to lessons learned over the years as a "member in the church"?

In over five decades as a member I have never ever anywhere in a formal setting directly heard someone say go to the bishop first as if the police were a second choice or to be avoided.

But if the reference here is that quietly, in one on one interviews and discussions or even in small groups she learned to go to the bishop and not the police, then I too have heard that directly a few times and anecdotally many times, especially when it came to a wife being abused. 

This. 

And it was more about white collar crime type stuff, I think. But the underlying message was always try to work it out and forgive. There was little about restitution and it was a badge of honor to just walk away and take the hit. Twenty years ago when I had to sue for repayment of a loan, my bishop leaned over the table, stretching his arms out, with his palms up and told me with a straight face that "their lives are in your hands." Uh, no....my money, as a widow with a small child, was in their hands. I refused to talk to him again. It took me a year and a half of trying to "work it out" before I sued because of this kind of pressure. 

I don't think it is as prevalent now but we still get lesson after lesson about "forgiving" that does not take into account the practicalities of the victim's needs being met along with it. That is where I think the message still gets through even if it is not said directly.  

[rpn]

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think this BYU study from last year supports the idea that Mormons are taught this ethic of not going to the police.  According to the study only 3% of respondents reported abuse to police.  The clear preference for those reporting at all was to report to ecclesiastical leaders at 26%.  I was very saddened to see the results of this study, and I think it shows the need for significant progress on this topic.  

 

The US EEOC has this to say about reporting sexual harassment:

Quote

Formal reporting is the “least common response” among men and woman who have experienced harassment in the workplace — “approximately 30% of individuals who experienced harassment talked with a supervisor, manager, or union representative,” the EEOC study said. It continued:

Unwanted physical touching was formally reported only 8% of the time; and sexually coercive behavior was reported by only 30% of the women who experienced it. ... Studies have found that 6% to 13% of individuals who experience harassment file a formal complaint. 63 That means that, on average, anywhere from 87% to 94% of individuals did not file a formal complaint.   https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/15/16438750/weinstein-sexual-harassment-facts

 

I think the BYU study shows that byu students reported to someone more frequently than others do.     The most reliable of statistics today is that fewer than 40% of rapes are reported to police.  https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system  And when you learn from the same source that fewer that 7% will be found guilty of a felony, it is not hard to see why police reports aren't made.  

But are we really discussing that?   The issue in the latest cases is about priesthood leaders abusing their power to do bad things to those they serve or serve with.   That is much more than the rape or sexual assault or grooming or battery of inserting their own semen into a patient who is seeking children.    The idea that something is wrong if every complaint isn't made to the police defies what actually happens, and a survivor's real need to control her life and decisions rather than be told by others what to do, or that there is something wrong with them if they report it to one person or entity rather than another (in the case of those going to a bishop, they likely aren't reporting it at all, but seeking help and comfort, and often precisely because they don't WANT to call the police).

I was never taught to go to a bishop rather than police.   And I've never heard anyone taught to go to the bishop about whom they should marry,  or a host of other decisions that I sometimes learn friends and acquaintenances have approached the bishop about:  but they go to such bishops because parents use seeing the bishop as an disciplinary technique, or because they never learned their own ownership and agency in making their own decisions, or sometimes because they want a bishop to tell them what to do.

And I don't think the CHURCH has a problem that compels members to see the bishop when they ought to (because we've decided we would in those circumstances?) go to the police.

What I do think is that we ought to have a better way to address concerns that arise when our leaders do things that seem to be waaaay wrong, which does happen on occasion.   One thing would be a policy that no member would be disciplined for reporting to some source outside the existing chain of ecclesiastical command, abuse or mistreatment by a leader, or refusing to quit raising issues of concern.   The policy might require that an Area Presidency or their designee personally interview the complainant, anyone else that might have personal knowledge of the issue, and review any phone records that the church controls, and run the name through a church data base that includes all complaints not just of sexual things, but also of honesty, integrity, violence and abuse of power.    Another might be that no one is called before they are asked specifically about whether their children will say about their temper and how they are as parents, what their enemies will say about them, whether they have ever abused their power, AND their best friend, maybe even their previous two employers, spouse and children have been interviewed about whether the member is worthy to be in charge of others ---- there's probably somewhere a list of the kinds of questions that are most likely to result in finding out the whole of a person's basic life.   The policy should require that BOTH parents are told immediately of any accusation, and then everything the bishop knows after investigation of any report of child abuse by leaders/members, and what the church has done/will be doing to protect others from any repeat of the behavior, including that the church will pay for any therapy the kiddo needs that parents can get from any source --- not just someone recommended by the bishop.*

But the business of having to report to police is just wrong.  Also paternalistic as though again the bishop/church always knows what's best and the members cannot be trusted to decide who they want to share their stories with.  

*Again, some parents will chose, for very appropriate reasons, not to report it to the police

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think the BYU study shows that byu students reported to someone more frequently than others do. 

I don't see any evidence from your link that supports this interpretation.  The report you linked to says 31% of victims of sexual assault reported it to police, conversely 3% of BYU students reported to police.  Reporting to "someone" was not anywhere in the study that you linked to that I can find.  Perhaps you have other evidence to support your claim?  

55 minutes ago, rpn said:

But are we really discussing that?   The issue in the latest cases is about priesthood leaders abusing their power to do bad things to those they serve or serve with.   That is much more than the rape or sexual assault or grooming or battery of inserting their own semen into a patient who is seeking children.    The idea that something is wrong if every complaint isn't made to the police defies what actually happens, and a survivor's real need to control her life and decisions rather than be told by others what to do, or that there is something wrong with them if they report it to one person or entity rather than another (in the case of those going to a bishop, they likely aren't reporting it at all, but seeking help and comfort, and often precisely because they don't WANT to call the police).

I honestly don't understand what you're saying here, you sound passionate, but I'm missing your point.  

56 minutes ago, rpn said:

I was never taught to go to a bishop rather than police.   And I've never heard anyone taught to go to the bishop about whom they should marry,  or a host of other decisions that I sometimes learn friends and acquaintenances have approached the bishop about:  but they go to such bishops because parents use seeing the bishop as an disciplinary technique, or because they never learned their own ownership and agency in making their own decisions, or sometimes because they want a bishop to tell them what to do.

And I don't think the CHURCH has a problem that compels members to see the bishop when they ought to (because we've decided we would in those circumstances?) go to the police.

In my personal experience, I don't recall an explicit teaching either, but our personal observations are just anecdotes and not representative statistical analysis.  The BYU study shows a behavioral pattern that is very clear.  Whether explicit instructions lead to the outcome or other factors, the clear evidence shows that Mormons follow this "teaching".  

59 minutes ago, rpn said:

But the business of having to report to police is just wrong.  Also paternalistic as though again the bishop/church always knows what's best and the members cannot be trusted to decide who they want to share their stories with. 

I agree with this and I'm not advocating a policy to compel victims to report to police exclusively.  I recommended many great resources, government and health care related that are free, easily accessible and have trained professionals to help.  Well intentioned or not, the lay leaders of the church aren't qualified to help and I believe do more harm than good often enough that the church ought to get completely out of this business of providing pseudo counseling for victims.  

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't think these issues can be lessened by declaring your belief that times have changed or by pointing to the fact that church members no longer go to the bishop to resolve ownership of cattle or milk strippings. Members still talk to the bishop first on many, many things because the bishop supposedly is inspired to solve problems. Why do you think E. Ballard had to point out in a speech not too long ago that the members shouldn't think the leaders are experts in everything or even most things and should go to others for advice when appropriate?

You're saying you think people go first to the Bishop for crimes rather than police at the same rate today as the 1960's or 1930's? I'm really skeptical for the obvious reason that I literally know no one who thinks they should go to the Bishop for that at all today. This whole supposed Mormon tradition that so many of us see no evidence for needs some evidence. I certainly won't deny there may be someone who thinks that. But I'm extremely skeptical it's anything more than a very small minority.

Those who go first to the Bishop likely are doing it for what they perceive as practical reasons or because they're just socially ignorant/distrustful. i.e. they don't want to go to police or don't know other avenues in government/law.

Edited April 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You're saying you think people go first to the Bishop for crimes rather than police at the same rate today as the 1960's or 1930's? I'm really skeptical for the obvious reason that I literally know no one who thinks they should go to the Bishop for that at all today.

Unfortunately, I believe that many (maybe even most?) members of the church would go first to their Bishop.  Most especially if the abuse that occurred was by another church member (or even just a family member).  I think that is slowly changing, but for you to say that you "literally know no one who thinks they should go to the Bishop" for this, is amazing for me to read (and encouraging).