Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Calm]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

I have not find a news outlet that claims Greg Bishop released it. Portions yes, but at least on news outlet was mum on how it received the full document. (Though I accept that you have information I do not)

No, I meant what you say here...Bishop released someof it.  The full one has been leaked but I have never found a copy of it.

[changed]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

These people cannot become de facto (and, if I am reading you correctly, even de jure) agents of the state.  Mandatory reporting laws are an important and appropriate caveat, but perpetrators need to have a "safe" place where they can talk about their misconduct.  If psychiatrists and attorneys and clergy were obligated by law to report confessions of misconduct, people would . . . stop confessing their misconduct to psychiatrists and attorneys and clergy. 

 

It is not a real confession if they are not willing to confess to law enforcement where needed.

True repentance = confessing to EVERYONE who needs to be involved, including law enforcement where crimes are involved.

It is NOT repentance, it is NOT confession, it is pointless unless the correct authorities are involved and the problem is taken care of.

What is the point of someone telling their bishop they abused/molested/raped someone if the bishop does nothing? reports nothing? does not go through the FULL repentance process with them?

• the victim is not taken care of
• the abuse is not taken care of

What good was done here?  They are told they are "forgiven" and they go on their merry way, then abusing more people?  That is what happens.  Most pedophiles abuse more than one child.  Being "forgiven" by a bishop is ENABLING for the predator to continue their abusive behavior.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng

Confessions and restitution are both essential steps of repentance.  As is keeping the commandments = and we are commanded to obey the laws of the land.  If an abuser does not turn themselves in and serve their time for their crime they are breaking the commandments of God, they are not confessing, they are not making restitution, they are not going through the repentance process.

Commandment = “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in
obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." → not serving time for a crime is going against the commandments.

Going to jail is not the end of the world.

Leaving kids in abusive situations, not going through the full repentance process, not taking care of a problem = this is where spirits are lost.

Edited September 28, 2018 by changed

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, changed said:

 

It is not a real confession if they are not willing to confess to law enforcement where needed.

True repentance = confessing to EVERYONE who needs to be involved, including law enforcement where crimes are involved.

It is NOT repentance, it is NOT confession, it is pointless unless the correct authorities are involved and the problem is taken care of.

 

What is the point of someone telling their bishop they abused/molested/raped someone if the bishop does nothing? reports nothing? does not go through the FULL repentance process with them?

• the victim is not taken care of
• the abuse is not taken care of

What good was done here?  They are told they are "forgiven" and they go on their merry way, then abusing more people?  That is what happens.  Most pedophiles abuse more than one child.  Being "forgiven" by a bishop is ENABLING for the predator to continue their abusive behavior.

 

I believe that you are right, it is often necessary to turn ones self in to complete the repentance process. I know of several instances of when bishops have brought people in to the authorities to help them with the repentance process. 

Do you believe  forgiveness or repentance?

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Danzo

[changed]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You don't believe in forgiveness or repentance?

I believe there are very clear steps to the repentance process.

Full confession and restitution, then keeping the commandments = repentance.  This is what is taught in manuals, what is taught in scriptures.

Yes - I believe in repentance and forgiveness → and I believe repentance = turning yourself in, serving your time if a crime is involved, a full confession, or it is not repentance.  

 

This is the problem with the Catholic church as well, they downplayed the repentance process.  Just pay your indulgence and everything is fine?  really?  ... Just pay your tithing, and have a short chat with your bishop and everything is fine?  ... try again.

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by changed

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, changed said:

I believe there are very clear steps to the repentance process.

Full confession and restitution, then keeping the commandments = repentance.  This is what is taught in manuals, what is taught in scriptures.

Yes - I believe in repentance and forgiveness → and I believe repentance = turning yourself in, serving your time, full confession, or it is not repentance.  

I agree.

 

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, changed said:

This is the problem with the Catholic church as well, they downplayed the repentance process.  Just pay your indulgence and everything is fine?  really?  ... Just pay your tithing, and have a short chat with your bishop and everything is fine?  ... try again

I don't see how the Catholic practice of the sale of indulgences can be equated at all with the Lord's law of tithing. 

And to say that a chat with the bishop and paying tithing will fix things does not seem fair to those who have been willing to confess their sins and do all they they are asked to do to repent.

[changed]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I agree.

 

It sound like, in quite a few of these abuse cases, the abuser did not go through a full repentance process.  Did not believe in obeying the laws of the land.  Did not confess or try to make any sort of restitution to their victims.  ... In these cases, part of the repentance process is going to involve the abuser turning themselves in to law enforcement, and confessing what has happened to police and detectives so that the victim can feel safe, and partial restitution can be made.

[changed]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I don't see how the Catholic practice of the sale of indulgences can be equated at all with the Lord's law of tithing. 

And to say that a chat with the bishop and paying tithing will fix things does not seem fair to those who have been willing to confess their sins and do all they they are asked to do to repent.

 

Are they asked to turn themselves in to the police when a crime has been committed?

If they do not turn themselves in voluntarily - they need to be reported.  This is obeying the laws of the land.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

These people cannot become de facto (and, if I am reading you correctly, even de jure) agents of the state.  Mandatory reporting laws are an important and appropriate caveat, but perpetrators need to have a "safe" place where they can talk about their misconduct.  If psychiatrists and attorneys and clergy were obligated by law to report confessions of misconduct, people would . . . stop confessing their misconduct to psychiatrists and attorneys and clergy. 

It is not a real confession if they are not willing to confess to law enforcement where needed.

That's a theological assertion, not a legal one.  And it's not your place, or mine, to declare what is a "real" confession and what is not.

Confessions to bishops are covered by the clergy/penitent privilege.

10 minutes ago, changed said:

True repentance = confessing to EVERYONE who needs to be involved, including law enforcement where crimes are involved.

"True repentance" also requires voluntary penitence, not coerced.

10 minutes ago, changed said:

It is NOT repentance, it is NOT confession, it is pointless unless the correct authorities are involved and the problem is taken care of.

Again, these are points of doctrinal interpretation and application.  I'm not talking about that.  I'm talking about the legal issues pertaining to clergy/penitent privilege.

10 minutes ago, changed said:

What is the point of someone telling their bishop they abused/molested/raped someone if the bishop does nothing?

It is a necessary part of the repentance process.  The function of the bishop is to facilitate and encourage repentance.

Bishops will encourage the individual to confess to law enforcement, but bishops cannot compel that.

10 minutes ago, changed said:

reports nothing? does not go through the FULL repentance process with them?

• the victim is not taken care of
• the abuse is not taken care of

What good was done here? 

The individual is being given the opportunity to repent.  Whether the person actually proceeds is up to the individual.

Repentance cannot be coerced.

10 minutes ago, changed said:

They are told they are "forgiven" and they go on their merry way, then abusing more people?  That is what happens. 

No, that is not what happens.

10 minutes ago, changed said:

Most pedophiles abuse more than one child.  Being "forgiven" by a bishop is ENABLING for the predator to continue their abusive behavior.

It is my understanding that bishops don't "forgive."  They impose and remove penalties.  That's all.  They lack authority to forgive sins.  See here:

Quote

Here is an excerpt from The Miracle of Forgiveness (pp. 263-264) that may be useful to consider:

Quote

 

Bishops Remove Penalties, Not Sins

 

Although there are many ecclesiastical officers in the Church whose positions entitle and require them to be judges, the authority of those positions does not necessarily qualify them to forgive or remit sins.  Those who can do that are extremely few in this world.

 

The bishop, and others in comparable positions, can forgive in the sense of waiving the penalties. In our loose connotation we sometimes call this forgiveness, but it is not forgiveness in the sense of "wiping out" or absolution. The waiver means, however, that the individual will not need to be tried again for the same error, and that he may become active and have fellowship with the people of the Church. In receiving the confession and waiving the penalties the bishop is representing the Lord. He helps to carry the burden, relieves the transgressor's strain and tension, and assures to him a continuation of Church activity.

 

It is the Lord, however, who forgives sin. This point, and the position of the bishop and comparable officers in the matter, was brought out in the following instruction given to bishops of the Church by President J. Reuben Clark on April 5, 1946:

 

Quote

 

...

 

There is in the Church... the power to remit sins, but I do not believe it resides in the bishops. That is a power that must be exercised under the proper authority of the priesthood and by those who hold the keys that pertain to that function. Woo back every sinner. Forgive them personally. The Lord has said that. Do all you can, but short of that formal remission the matter then rests between the transgressor and the Lord, who is merciful, who knows all of the circumstances, who has no disposition but to aid his children, give them comfort, guide them, and help them. But the Lord has said, "I cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." So we leave it with him, and our prayers go with the prayers of the transgressor that God will forgive him, but the path of the sinner was never smooth and I believe never will he.

 

...

 

Let it be said in emphasis that even the First Presidency and the Apostles do not make a practice of absolving sins. They waive penalties in the course of their ministrations. Thus the forgiveness or waiver of penalty is not something to be taken idly or thoughtlessly and is not to be given for a mere token effort or trial, but only for a genuine, wholehearted repentance.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, here is a Facebook post which addresses this point.  The post purports to be quoting general authorities, but the specific quotation below appears to be from the writer of the post, not from a GA.  Nevertheless, I think the point is worth considering:

 

Quote

Regarding the authority of priesthood leaders to remit sins, Doctrine and Covenants 132:46 ties this authority with the sealing keys. "And  verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you  bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven."  So the only Priesthood leaders that have the authority on earth to remit sins is the Priesthood office that holds the sealing keys, meaning The First Presidency.  But even they don’t do it often.

 

I think that is correct.  

Personally, I like the idea of bishops not declaring sins forgiven.  Forgiveness necessarily becomes something that is solely between the individual and the Lord.

10 minutes ago, changed said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng

Confessions and restitution are both essential steps of repentance.  As is keeping the commandments = and we are commanded to obey the laws of the land.  If an abuser does not turn themselves in and serve their time for their crime they are breaking the commandments of God, they are not confessing, they are not making restitution, they are not going through the repentance process.

Fair points.

But not relevant to the clergy/penitent privilege.

10 minutes ago, changed said:

Commandment = “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in
obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." → not serving time for a crime is going against the commandments.

Going to jail is not the end of the world.

Leaving kids in abusive situations, not going through the full repentance process, not taking care of a problem = this is where spirits are lost.

I've said nothing about "leaving kids in abusive situations."  Clearly we can't do that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[changed]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

That's a theological assertion, not a legal one.  And it's not your place, or mine, to declare what is a "real" confession and what is not.

Confessions to bishops are covered by the clergy/penitent privilege.

"True repentance" also requires voluntary penitence, not coerced.

Again, these are points of doctrinal interpretation and application.  I'm not talking about that.  I'm talking about the legal issues pertaining to clergy/penitent privilege.

It is a necessary part of the repentance process.  The function of the bishop is to facilitate and encourage repentance.

Bishops will encourage the individual to confess to law enforcement, but bishops cannot compel that.

The individual is being given the opportunity to repent.  Whether the person actually proceeds is up to the individual.

Repentance cannot be coerced.

No, that is not what happens.

It is my understanding that bishops don't "forgive."  They impose and remove penalties.  That's all.  They lack authority to forgive sins.  See here:

I think that is correct.  

Personally, I like the idea of bishops not declaring sins forgiven.  Forgiveness necessarily becomes something that is solely between the individual and the Lord.

Fair points.

But not relevant to the clergy/penitent privilege.

I've said nothing about "leaving kids in abusive situations."  Clearly we can't do that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Kids are left in abusive situations.  Abusers were given temple recommends and callings.  At least, that is what was happening in my situation.... story #823 if you want to read it.  Repentance did not happen, and the guy was given a free pass to attend the temple he even served in the bishopric (1st councilor).  I am not the only one with stories like this.

Edited September 28, 2018 by changed

[ksfisher]

Just now, changed said:

Are they asked to turn themselves in to the police when a crime has been committed?

Handbook 1, 17.3.2

"If confidential information indicates that a member’s abusive activities have violated applicable law, the bishop or stake president should urge the member to report these activities to the appropriate government authorities."

2 minutes ago, changed said:

If they do not turn themselves in voluntarily - they need to be reported.  This is obeying the laws of the land.

Obeying the laws of the land also means honoring priest/penitent privileged communication where it is law.

[smac97]

Just now, changed said:

Kids are left in abusive situations.  Abusers are given temple recommends and callings.  At least, that is what was happening in my situation.... story #823 if you want to read it.

I can't really comment on anonymous, uncorroborated anecdotes.  And you presuppose that which is often not demonstrated (that abuse is going on).

The Church has no civil authority to deprive parents of the custody of their children.  Only civil authorities can do that.

As for (presumably unrepentant) "abusers" being given temple recommends, that would be disallowed by the TR questions.

So if this is happening, it is happening in contravention of the policies and guidelines of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, changed said:

 

What is the point of someone telling their bishop they abused/molested/raped someone if the bishop does nothing? reports nothing? does not go through the FULL repentance process with them?

• the victim is not taken care of
• the abuse is not taken care of

 

If a consulting with an attorney becomes the the same thing as turning oneself into the police, then people would be afraid to be open an honest with the attorney and would not get good legal advice.  

The same goes with a bishop. Once a bishop knows what happened he can encourage the  penitent to turn himself in and get the help he needs.   (I know of several cases where this has happened). If talking to the bishops is the same thing as going to the cops, less people would go to the bishop and less people will do what they need to do to fix their issue (which often involves turning themselves in). 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, changed said:

Are they asked to turn themselves in to the police when a crime has been committed?

Yes.  

12 minutes ago, changed said:

If they do not turn themselves in voluntarily - they need to be reported.  This is obeying the laws of the land.

CFR.  Chapter and verse, please, that the "the laws of the land" require clergy to "report" self-reported abusers.

I will hold you to this, as I think you are quite wrong.  You will either need to retract this claim, or else provide a citation to a legal authority that supports your claim.  If you do not do one of these things, I will report you to the mods.

These are difficult discussions, and I get that emotions can get heated.  But we don't just get to fabricate stuff, as I think you are doing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Are they asked to turn themselves in to the police when a crime has been committed?

If they do not turn themselves in voluntarily - they need to be reported.  This is obeying the laws of the land.

I believe that they are often asked to turn themselves in. 

[changed]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I can't really comment on anonymous, uncorroborated anecdotes.  And you presuppose that which is often not demonstrated (that abuse is going on).

The Church has no civil authority to deprive parents of the custody of their children.  Only civil authorities can do that.

As for (presumably unrepentant) "abusers" being given temple recommends, that would be disallowed by the TR questions.

So if this is happening, it is happening in contravention of the policies and guidelines of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

We convicted our abuser last month - he is serving 40 years without parole for his crimes.  I assure, it is very real.  Year after year, calling after calling, child after child - and no one in the church stopped him more than to send him to the addiction recovery groups.  

This is why I am no longer in the church.  

You can read my previous posts - see what a good devout apologetic Mormon I used to be before this.  

Now I have met all of these other people - same thing happened.

What I wrote in #823 applies.  If you are in a position of authority to make policy changes to protect children, great - I can share the case with you.

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, changed said:

Kids are left in abusive situations.  Abusers were given temple recommends and callings.  At least, that is what was happening in my situation.... story #823 if you want to read it.  Repentance did not happen, and the guy was given a free pass to attend the temple he even served in the bishopric (1st councilor).  I am not the only one with stories like this.

Kids are often left in abusive situations even after reporting abuse to the police.  Our state is notorious  for allowing that to happen. 

Although reporting the abuse to the authorities is often essential,  it doesn't fix everything. 

There is a current case in our ward, a heartbreaking case where a mother who is a member is accused of allowing her boyfriend to do horrific things to her children (I believe he is accused of prostituting them out, 3 four and five year olds).  

The authorities have been contacted and she doesn't currently have custody of the children, but we all know that after attending a drug treatment program the state will just give the children back to her. Its heartbreaking! these are beautiful children that will have to suffer for the rest of their lives, the state won't sever parental rights and so the children will be condemned to living with her and then going to foster care and then living with her again.  

There is nothing we can do as a ward, nothing at all. If a member of the ward were to take the children away (Which is what I think should be done) they would go to jail for kidnapping. 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Danzo

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, changed said:

We convicted our abuser last month - he is serving 40 years without parole for his crimes.  I assure, it is very real. 

I am not saying that abuse is not "real."  I am saying that it is often not demonstrated.  I hope you can appreciate the difference.

Quote

Year after year, calling after calling, child after child - and no one in the church stopped him more than to send him to the addiction recovery groups.  

This is why I am no longer in the church.  

I am sorry to hear that.  I don't know the facts of your situation, so I can't really comment.

The Church's policies and procedures, if followed, will very often detect and stop abuse.  Alas, the Church lacks civil authority, so faulting the Church for having not "stopped him" is a bit confusing to me.  The Church could not have arrested him.  Or prosecuted him for misconduct.  The Church actually is quite limited in terms of what it can do.  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.

Again, I can't speak as to what the local leaders of the Church did or did not do in your narrative.  The Church can A) encourage the perpetrator to repent, B) help the victims, C) report allegations of abuse to civil authorities, and D) impose church discipline on the individual.  

Quote

You can read my previous posts - see what a good devout apologetic Mormon I used to be before this.

The sins and omissions of other people can have a big influence on us.  I get that.  I can appreciate it.

Quote

Now I have met all of these other people - same thing happened.

What I wrote in #823 applies.  If you are in a position of authority to make policy changes to protect children, great - I can share the case with you.

I am not in a position of authority so as "to make policy changes."

I am open to a few changes/improvements, such as background checks of individuals working with children, and windows in the doors of bishops' offices (or else a no-audio closed-circuit camera in the bishop's office).  I think these changes would not be a significant improvement, though.  The existing policies and procedures need more emphasis.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Kids are often left in abusive situations even after reporting abuse to the police.  Our state is notorious  for allowing that to happen. 

Although reporting the abuse to the authorities is often essential,  it doesn't fix everything. 

There is a current case in our ward, a heartbreaking case where a mother who is a member is accused of allowing her boyfriend to do horrific things to her children (I believe he is accused of prostituting them out, 3 four and five year olds).  

The authorities have been contacted and she doesn't currently have custody of the children, but we all know that after attending a drug treatment program the state will just give the children back to her. Its heartbreaking! these are beautiful children that will have to suffer for the rest of their lives, the state won't sever parental rights and so the children will be condemned to living with her and then going to foster care and then living with her again.  

There is nothing we can do as a ward, nothing at all. If a member of the ward were to take the children away (Which is what I think should be done) they would go to jail for kidnapping. 

 

I know of a case where after being kicked out of their home, the youth went to a neighbour's home and the police were called and the parent let everyone know if they did anything for the kid, they were interfering with parental rights and they would be arrested and/or sued.  Church members offered to help care for the kid (it was neglect and emotional abuse) to ease the parental burden (having to work long hours, commute), again threats.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/27/2018 at 4:40 AM, Abulafia said:

You are simply wrong. Ignorantly so. But this brings up an interesting issue, Scott.

Do you feel the institutional church has ever acted negligently when it comes to sexual abuse or violence and bullying? Is it even possible in your eyes?

I don’t believe I am wrong. 

As for being ignorant, I assume you have made your best effort to lay out your perspective. Nothing you or anyone else here has said has changed my view that the mother was tragically negligent to have her son share a bed with a non-family member with a questionable background. 

Regarding your question, yes, I think it’s possible. But my default position, absent compelling evidence, is a presumption of innocence. 

Edited to add:

I don’t hold with the concept of collective or “institutional” blame for actions perpetrated by an individual without the awareness or in contravention of the institution’s expressed policies and positions. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Abulafia]

Changed, I just checked the CHI 2006 edition. It says contact with authorities  may be required for repentance.

That should be changed straight away, If it hasn't been already .

The image I have uploaded came out of an interview Gina Colvin did with Tim Kosnoff. I assume it is authentic.

 

[smac97]

On 9/27/2018 at 4:40 AM, Abulafia said:

Do you feel the institutional church has ever acted negligently when it comes to sexual abuse or violence and bullying? Is it even possible in your eyes?

The "institutional church" cannot really "act."  The Church's "acts" are those of its agents and representatives.  Most of the time, the "higher ups" in the Church (general authorities, area authorities) are not really in a position to act "negligently" (as to matters of abuse allegations, as they are generally not the "go to" representatives of the Church).  Local leaders can be, though (bishops, stake presidents, and perhaps even other ward-level leaders).

So have any of these local leaders ever "acted negligently when it comes to [allegations regarding] sexual abuse or violence and bullying?"  Certainly.  If Ron Leavitt is to be believed, he failed to report allegations of sexual abuse.  He should have.

And he's not alone.  Other bishops and local leaders have likewise failed on occasion to follow the Church's policies and procedures regarding allegations of abuse.

I will repeate that last sentence, with an emphasis on the important bit: "Other bishops and local leaders have likewise failed on occasion to follow the Church's policies and procedures regarding allegations of abuse."

But here's the part you and yours consistently refuse to acknowledge or address: Many bishops and local leaders do follow the Church's policies and procedures, and do end up detecting and helping to stop abuse, and do report abuse allegations to civil authorities, and do encourage self-reported perpetrators to turn themselves in, and do have access to various materials and resources from the Church to help in these matters.

But you and yours don't care.  You don't address these successful efforts.  They conflict with the poisonous narrative being crafted about the Church not caring about the victims of abuse.  It is a narrative that deliberately omits and ignores the Church's efforts in addressing allegations of abuse.  It is a damnably false narrative.  It is bearing false witness against us on a grand scale.

It is this deliberate and deterimined and protracted refusal to acknowledge these policies and procedures, and their intended and actual effects, that I find to be so troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Changed, I just checked the CHI 2006 edition. It says contact with authorities  may be required for repentance.

That should be changed straight away, If it hasn't been already .

It sure would be nice if you were more familiar with the Church's efforts in this area before throwing out public accusations on a nearly non-stop basis.

Why are you citing the 2006 CHI and not the 2010 edition?  And what about the resources I summarized earlier?  Why are you ignoring the First Presidency letter sent out in March about this issue, which was accompanied by a summary of the Church's policies regarding abuse?  Why are you ignoring the many, many resources referenced in that summary?  Here they are again:

Quote

• First Presidency letter, “Responding to Abuse,” July 28, 2008.
• “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2017, 145
• Doctrine and Covenants 121:37
• Doctrine and Covenants 101:78
• “Save the Children,” Ensign, Nov. 1994, 52–54
• "{A} free and confidential abuse help line, 1-800-453- 3860, ext. 2 -1911"
• Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and B ishops [2010], 17.3. 2
• Preventing and Respond ing to Spouse Abuse: Helps for Members (1997)
• Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse: Helps for Members (1997 )
• Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 11.8.1
• First Presidency letter, May 12, 2017
• Guide to Safe Scouting
• Handbook 1, 7.4
• Handbook 2, 13.6.12
• Protect the Child: Responding to Child Abuse, found under “Abuse: Help for the Victim” (ministeringresources.lds.org)
• Handbook 1, 6.4 and 6.5
• Handbook 1, 17.1.26
• “Abuse: Help for the Victim,” ministeringresources.lds.org
• “Abuse: Help for the Offender,” ministeringresources.lds.org
• Articles of Faith 1:12
• Doctrine and Covenants 121; 123
• Gordon B. Hinckley, “Personal Worthiness to Exercise the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 2002, 52–59
• Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 70–72
• Dallin H. Oaks, “Priesthood Authority in the Family and the Church,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2005, 24–27
• Richard G. Scott, “To Heal the Shattering Consequences of Abuse,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2008, 40–43
• LDS Family Services courses Strengthening Marriage and Strengthening the Family

What is going on here?  You seem to be making outrageous claims from a position of marked ignorance.  Were you not aware of these resources?  Or are you just determined to pretend as if they don't exist?  Both options are troubling.

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The "institutional church" cannot really "act."  The Church's "acts" are those of its agents and representatives.  Most of the time, the "higher ups" in the Church (general authorities, area authorities) are not really in a position to act "negligently."  Local leaders can be, though (bishops, stake presidents, and perhaps even other ward-level leaders).

So have any of these local leaders ever "acted negligently when it comes to [allegations regarding] sexual abuse or violence and bullying?"  Certainly.  If Ron Leavitt is to be believed, he failed to report allegations of sexual abuse.  He should have.

And he's not alone.  Other bishops and local leaders have likewise failed on occasion to follow the Church's policies and procedures regarding allegations of abuse.

I will repeate that last sentence, with an emphasis on the important bit: "Other bishops and local leaders have likewise failed on occasion to follow the Church's policies and procedures regarding allegations of abuse."

It is this deliberate and deterimined and protracted refusal to acknowledge these policies and procedures, and their intended and actual effects, that I find to be so troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

I certainly agree with this. 

I should have stipulated in my response to Abulafia that I don’t hold with the concept of collective or “institutional” blame for actions perpetrated by an individual without the awareness or in contravention of the institution’s expressed policies and positions. 

In fact, I’ll go back and add that to my response post now. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Abulafia]

Smac. If it were available I would cite it!!

 

I'll check to see if it has changed if 2010 is available.