Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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 institutions expressed policies and positions. 

I'm not big on collective guilt/blame, either.

The Church certainly has obligations that include taking affirmative steps to avoid the risk of abuse.  And sometimes those steps need improvement and modification.  I'm fine with that.  But I am vexed at the narrative that the Church doesn't care about abuse victims.  That is damnably false.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not big on collective guilt/blame, either.

The Church certainly has obligations that include taking affirmative steps to avoid the risk of abuse.  And sometimes those steps need improvement and modification.  I'm fine with that.  But I am vexed at the narrative that the Church doesn't care about abuse victims.  That is damnably false.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes. It’s a scurrilous accusation. 

[Abulafia]

Who has access to the CHI? Is it just the Bishop and Stake President? 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Who has access to the CHI? Is it just the Bishop and Stake President? 

And their counselors.

And, I think, anyone who has a question about the topics covered in it can just ask.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Abulafia]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And their counselors.

And, I think, anyone who has a question about the topics covered in it can just ask.  

Thanks,

-Smac

So, in the 2010 CHI is it *may* or *must* when it comes to repentance and criminal actions such as child abuse or rape?

Edited September 28, 2018 by Abulafia

[changed]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

There is nothing we can do as a ward, nothing at all.

Here are some things:

• Don't give abusers callings (are callings from God?  I don't count on this any more... callings need background checks.)
• Warn other people in the ward about what is going on so more kids do not become involved.
• Support the kids as much as you can.
• Keep talking to the police until CPS can do what they need to do.
• Document, document, document - everything.
• Find people in the ward who can professionally help - who in the ward is in law enforcement?  Who is a councilor or therapist? who would be a good mentor to pair with them?  What would a good support group be for all who are involved?

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by changed

[changed]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not big on collective guilt/blame, either.

The Church certainly has obligations that include taking affirmative steps to avoid the risk of abuse.  And sometimes those steps need improvement and modification.  I'm fine with that.  But I am vexed at the narrative that the Church doesn't care about abuse victims.  That is damnably false.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

How about implementing some training sessions then - what to do when you see abuse, how to report it, who to report it to.  What to do if you are in a bad situation.  How to handle depression and other health issues. If the church cared, they would do something.  

By their works ye shall know them... not by their words, not by their prayers and good intentions, not by their supposed love - by their works.  What works are being done?  

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

So, in the 2010 CHI is it *may* or *must* when it comes to repentance and criminal actions such as child abuse or rape?

From secton 17.3.2 (emphases added):

Quote

17.3.2

Abuse and Cruelty The Church’s position is that abuse cannot be tolerated in any form. Those who abuse or are cruel to their spouses, children, other family members, or anyone else violate the laws of God and man. All members, especially parents and leaders, are encouraged to be alert and diligent and do all they can to protect children and others against abuse and neglect. Members who have abused others are subject to Church discipline. They should not be given Church callings and may not have a temple recommend until they have repented and all Church discipline has been resolved. A person whose membership record is annotated for having abused a child sexually or physically must not be given any calling or assignment involving children or youth. Also, careful consideration should be given to other assignments, such as home teaching or visiting teaching. These restrictions should remain in place until the First Presidency authorizes removal of the annotation (see 6.13.4 for information about annotations). In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse. Victims of sexual abuse (including rape) often suffer serious trauma and feelings of guilt. Victims of the evil acts of others are not guilty of sin. Church leaders should be sensitive to such victims and give caring attention to help them overcome the destructive effects of abuse. Stake presidents and bishops make every effort to counsel those who have been involved in abuse. These leaders may refer to the booklet Responding to Abuse: Helps for Ecclesiastical Leaders and the pamphlets Preventing and Responding to Spouse Abuse and Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse. The DVD Protect the Child: Responding to Child Abuse also outlines the responsibilities of leaders and other members in preventing and responding to child abuse. All ward councils are asked to view this DVD and discuss it according to the guide on the back of the DVD case. In addition to the inspired help of Church leaders, members may need professional counseling. In the United States and Canada, stake presidents and bishops may contact LDS Family Services to identify resources to provide such counseling in harmony with gospel principles (1‑801-240-1711; 1-800-453-3860, extension 2-1711; or ldsfamilyservices.org). Outside the United States and Canada, stake presidents may contact the Area Presidency for guidance. If the transgressor is an adult who has committed a sexual transgression against a child, the behavior may be very deep-seated and the process of repentance and reformation may be very prolonged. In the United States and Canada, the Church has established a help line to assist stake presidents and bishops in cases of abuse (1-801-240-1911 or 1-800-453-3860, extension 2-1911). These leaders should call the help line if they: Become aware of physical or sexual abuse involving Church members. Believe that a person may have been abused or is at risk of being abused. Become aware of the viewing, purchasing, or distributing of child pornography. When calling the help line, leaders will be able to consult with professional counselors and legal specialists who can help answer questions and formulate steps to take. A bishop should also notify his stake president of instances of abuse. In countries that do not have a help line, a bishop who learns of abuse should contact his stake president, who will seek guidance from the Area Presidency. 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. Leaders can obtain information about local reporting requirements through the help line. Where reporting is required by law, the leader encourages the member to secure qualified legal advice. To avoid implicating the Church in legal matters to which it is not a party, Church leaders should avoid testifying in civil or criminal cases or other proceedings involving abuse. For specific guidelines, see 17.1.26.

A few thoughts:

• The Handbook does not address the intricacies of priest/penitent privilege. 
• The Handbook instead instructs bishops (in the U.S. and Canada) to call the helpline (the attorneys who staff it are extensively trained on each state's/province's disclosure requirements, and also on the jurisdictional treatment of the clergy penitent privilege).  Bishops outside of the U.S. and Canada should contact the stake president, who works with the Area President to figure out the appropriate course of action in that jurisdiction.
• I'm not sure what your question means ("CHI is it *may* or *must* when it comes to repentance and criminal actions such as child abuse or rape?").  I assume you are referencing whethr a bishop "may" or "must" report allegations of abuse to civil authorities.  The answer, in the main, is "yes."  But there are exceptions.  Bishops may be subject to the clergy/penitent privilege.  The statute of limitations may apply (I know of a case where the allegations pertained to abuse from 25+ years previous).  The allegations may have been previously reported.  And so on.
• I get your righteous indignation about child abuse.  I share it.  But I deeply resent your unfair and false characterizations of the Church and its bishops.  We are just as concerned about the welfare of children as you are.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Handbook does not address the intricacies of priest/penitent privilege. 

Rightly so as these would differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, changed said:

Here are some things:

• Don't give abusers callings (are callings from God?  I don't count on this any more... callings need background checks.)

This presupposes that a person is an "abuser" (as opposed to someone against whom allegations have been made).

Also, the Church has clear and mandatory restrictions on this issue: "A person whose membership record is annotated for having abused a child sexually or physically must not be given any calling or assignment involving children or youth. Also, careful consideration should be given to other assignments, such as home teaching or visiting teaching. These restrictions should remain in place until the First Presidency authorizes removal of the annotation."

Moreover, abusers can't repent?  They can't hold any callings?  Who are you to say that they cannot be forgiven by God?

Quote

• Warn other people in the ward about what is going on so more kids do not become involved.

Shunning?  How would you propose to do that?

Quote

• Support the kids as much as you can.

Certainly.

Quote

• Keep talking to the police until CPS can do what they need to do.

What does this mean?

Quote

• Document, document, document - everything.

What does this mean?

Quote

• Find people in the ward who can professionally help - who in the ward is in law enforcement?  Who is a councilor or therapist? who would be a good mentor to pair with them?  What would a good support group be for all who are involved?

I question that.  Better to get professionals outside of the ward to get involved as necessary.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2018 by smac97

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, changed said:

If the church cared, they would do something.  

Are you saying the church isn't?  How do you know that?

Resources and classes are available in my area through LDS Family Services.  This may differ from area to area.

Edited September 28, 2018 by ksfisher

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

I'm not big on collective guilt/blame, either.

The Church certainly has obligations that include taking affirmative steps to avoid the risk of abuse.  And sometimes those steps need improvement and modification.  I'm fine with that.  But I am vexed at the narrative that the Church doesn't care about abuse victims.  That is damnably false.

Thanks,

-Smac

How about implementing some training sessions then - what to do when you see abuse, how to report it, who to report it to. 

Bishops already get training and resources about this.

12 minutes ago, changed said:

What to do if you are in a bad situation.  How to handle depression and other health issues. If the church cared, they would do something.  

Sigh.  The Church is always the bad guy, huh?  Always.

"If the church cared..."  What a load of malarky.

12 minutes ago, changed said:

By their works ye shall know them... not by their words, not by their prayers and good intentions, not by their supposed love - by their works.  What works are being done?  

Tons.  But you've already prejudged us.  "If the church cared" and all that.

-Smac

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, changed said:

Don't give abusers callings (are callings from God?  I don't count on this any more... callings need background checks.)

Annotation are made on the records of those who have been convicted of abuse of children.

Are you saying that this should preclude the person from serving in a calling that does not involve contact with children?

[Abulafia]

Smac, here's the section from 2006. There Is no obligation under repentance and restitution to report to civil authorities where a crime had been committed. 

 

Could you check this section in the 2010 CHI?

[ksfisher]

Just now, Abulafia said:

Smac, here's the section from 2006. There Is no obligation under repentance and restitution to report to civil authorities where a crime had been committed. 

 

Could you check this section in the 2010 CHI?

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."

[Danzo]

31 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Smac, here's the section from 2006. There Is no obligation under repentance and restitution to report to civil authorities where a crime had been committed. 

 

Could you check this section in the 2010 CHI?

This is getting stupid.

LIke Kfisher says the manual clearly states ""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."

I really wish you would read the document before making absurd claims.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Danzo

[Abulafia]

Rubbish. This is NOT getting stupid.  They are NOT absurd claims.

*Repentance may include disclosure to government authorities*, read with *urge* does not in any way mean that a sexual predator, or pedophile must disclose to civil authorities where a crime has been committed for true repentance to take place. 

Show me what the 2010 CHI says under the Restitution section. It may have changed. Brilliant if it has.

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Is this up to date? I found it interesting

[Abulafia]

Changed, I read your story. It needs to be read to understand why policies and procedures are currently inadequate imho.

http://protectldschildren.org/823-name-hidden-cs-5/

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Smac I missed this.."I'm not sure what your question means ("CHI is it *may* or *must* when it comes to repentance and criminal actions such as child abuse or rape?").  I assume you are referencing whethr a bishop "may" or "must" report allegations of abuse to civil authorities.  The answer, in the main, is "yes."  But there are exceptions.  Bishops may be subject to the clergy/penitent privilege.  The statute of limitations may apply (I know of a case where the allegations pertained to abuse from 25+ years previous).  The allegations may have been previously reported.  And so on."

 

No, I am not referencing whether a bishop may or must report. 

I am arguing that a simple policy change could be made when dealing with perpetrators of criminal offences, that states that they (The perpetrator) must report to civil authorities to effect true repentance. Excommunication,  no hope of return to full fellowship until they have done that. 

 

 

 

 

[Danzo]

9 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Rubbish. This is NOT getting stupid.  They are NOT absurd claims.

*Repentance may include disclosure to government authorities*, read with *urge* does not in any way mean that a sexual predator, or pedophile must disclose to civil authorities where a crime has been committed for true repentance to take place. 

Show me what the 2010 CHI says under the Restitution section. It may have changed. Brilliant if it has.

 

Sorry, the word in the handbook is 'should'.

You are just being willfully ignorant or wilfully blind when you can't or won't read the material you quote from. 

 

You should stop while you can.

It really doesn't help your crusade against us.

It is important not to sacrifice honesty just because you feel you have a good cause.

[esodije]

In case anyone is interested, CDOL shows no Todd Denson in a church leadership position, much less in a stake presidency.  It appears McKenna pulled that one out of the brown.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, esodije said:

In case anyone is interested, CDOL shows no Todd Denson in a church leadership position, much less in a stake presidency.  It appears McKenna pulled that one out of the brown.

interesting. Though are we sure his last name is Denson?

[Abulafia]

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

Sorry, the word in the handbook is 'should'.

You are just being willfully ignorant or wilfully blind when you can't or won't read the material you quote from. 

 

You should stop while you can.

It really doesn't help your crusade against us.

It is important not to sacrifice honesty just because you feel you have a good cause.

Danzo. I'll ignore the hyperbole and mudslinging because it isn't helpful.

 

I think we are talking cross purposes here. I very much appreciate the following use of should.

"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." 

That's great. I have no problem with that. It's not the Stake President's duty to force. 

I am referring to the 2010 section on repentance of the perpetrator. 6.6   (I finally found a copy online)

There it says..

"Repentance may include disclosure to government authorities. If confidential information indicates that a member has violated applicable law, the bishop or stake president urges him to report the matter to appropriate government authorities. The member should also be counseled to seek competent legal advice before reporting. To obtain guidance on local laws that govern reporting abuse, see the instructions in 17.3.2."

A simple change here to ...

Repentance for serious criminal infractions [such as the sexual abuse of children, rape, murder, embezzlement, the production and distribution of child pornography] must include disclosure to government authorities by the perpetrator ...

would go a long way to making the church safer. That way, an abuser or rapist's (for instance) membership could never be restored until that had taken place.  

I checked the use of must elsewhere in the CHI..and it is used on numerous occasions.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Abulafia

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

A simple change here to ...

Repentance for serious criminal infractions [such as the sexual abuse of children, rape, murder, embezzlement, the production and distribution of child pornography] must include disclosure to government authorities by the perpetrator ...

So if a young woman confesses to sexting with a previous boyfriend, the correct response from her bishop (in your view) would be to tell her that she must turn herself into the police and register as a sex offender for life, and failure to do so means that she will never be able to attend a church school, serve a mission, or be married (or otherwise step foot) in the temple ever. Right? 

I believe your exact phrase was "no hope of return to full fellowship until they have done that."

You see, this is why no tolerance rules like the one you are suggesting are bad policy. 

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Amulek