esodije Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 5 hours ago, provoman said: interesting. Though are we sure his last name is Denson? Todd Denson.
Abulafia Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 (edited) Amulek, I didn't argue for every criminal offence. That would be up to the church to outline. So, it would be silly to argue that for minor offences such as speeding for instance, or where the crime is morally ambiguous. But, yes, where the crime is of such a serious import - rape, child sexual abuse, production of or viewing child pornography, armed robbery, embezzlement, that kind of offence. I am being told that one guy's bishop informed a confessor of theft that unless he turned himself in to authorities, true repentance wouldn't take place. Of course he couldn't force the guy, and he left it up to the guy, but that person did turn themselves in, and is serving jail time. That's true repentance. Edited September 30, 2018 by Abulafia 1
changed Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 On 9/28/2018 at 4:18 PM, ksfisher said: 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? I think it should preclude them from any kind of leadership calling. All leaders are supposed to be role models, are supposed to be trustworthy, mentors, a judge - there is nothing that can crush faith in the priesthood like knowing you have to support pedophiles in leadership positions in order to enter the temple. I will not do it. 1
provoman Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Abulafia said: Amulek, I didn't argue for every criminal offence. That would be up to the church to outline. So, it would be silly to argue that for minor offences such as speeding for instance, or where the crime is morally ambiguous. But, yes, where the crime is of such a serious import - rape, child sexual abuse, production of or viewing child pornography, armed robbery, embezzlement, that kind of offence. I am being told that one guy's bishop informed a confessor of theft that unless he turned himself in to authorities, true repentance wouldn't take place. Of course he couldn't force the guy, and he left it up to the guy, but that person did turn themselves in, and is serving jail time. That's true repentance. "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. " "young woman" [a minor] sending nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend, this is production and distribution of child pornography by the female. Her membership should not be restored until she reports herself to law enforcement? https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/06/06/police-investigating-sexting-among-teens-in-roosevelt/ From a separate article Roosevelt City released the following information and advice for parents on talking with their children about sexting: “Sexting, even between two minors, is considered illegal under Utah’s child pornography laws. Minors caught sexting can receive charges. Parents are encouraged to talk to their children about sexting, or using a smartphone to send and receive explicit content. Edited September 30, 2018 by provoman 1
Amulek Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 10 hours ago, Abulafia said: Amulek, I didn't argue for every criminal offence. I know you didn't. Your proposed policy change was for "serious criminal infractions" (emphasis added). I believe I both quoted and understood you correctly. Let's not pretend otherwise. Quote That would be up to the church to outline. Obviously. Still, I'm grateful the church has avoided the tendency to go this route. Creating a big list of sins which require criminal disclosure to authorities before repentance can be effectuated seems a bit...Pharisaical to me. Quote So, it would be silly to argue that for minor offences such as speeding for instance, or where the crime is morally ambiguous. What's silly is pretending that anyone was confused by the difference between speeding and "the production and distribution of child pornography." Quote But, yes, where the crime is of such a serious import - rape, child sexual abuse, production of or viewing child pornography, armed robbery, embezzlement, that kind of offence. Sexting by a minor involves "the production and distribution of child pornography," so I'll ask the question again (this time with a bit more specificity so as to avoid any possible willful misreading): If a 15 year old young woman confesses to her bishop that she has participated in sexting (i.e., sending nude photographs of herself) with an old 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? Her bishop should tell her there is "no hope of return to full fellowship until [she has] done that." Right?
Abulafia Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 Provoman. That's a ridiculous point. It really is. Her sexting a boyfriend by sending a topless image? Are you saying that would put her on a sex registry for life? Are you saying that the civic authorities would prosecute and send her to prison? Now, if she were being encouraged by a 44 year old man to send pornographic images of herself then *he* should/would be in trouble. Because she's 15. She's a kid and the law would recognise that.
Calm Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Abulafia said: Provoman. That's a ridiculous point. It really is. Her sexting a boyfriend by sending a topless image? Are you saying that would put her on a sex registry for life? Are you saying that the civic authorities would prosecute and send her to prison? The missionary the mission dept was reluctant to sent home was apparently facing a felony for having participated in such an exchange. If he went home and was turned in, would not the 15 year old girl who sent him the image be up for the same criminal charges as well? https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/04/15/graders-caught-sexting-could-have-register-sex-offenders/x9iKLlBhIn8A7RPIQqhmAL/story.html https://www.netnanny.com/blog/teen-sexting-laws-in-your-state/ Edited September 30, 2018 by Calm
Abulafia Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 42 minutes ago, Calm said: The missionary the mission dept was reluctant to sent home was apparently facing a felony for having participated in such an exchange. If he went home and was turned in, would not the 15 year old girl who sent him the image be up for the same criminal charges as well? https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/04/15/graders-caught-sexting-could-have-register-sex-offenders/x9iKLlBhIn8A7RPIQqhmAL/story.html https://www.netnanny.com/blog/teen-sexting-laws-in-your-state/ She's 15. So no. Here in the UK, Youth under 18 years old would be treated differently. "The police have said that sexting by children will primarily be considered as a safeguarding issue. The police must, by law, record all sexting incidents on their crime system but as of January 2016, they can decide not to take further action against the young person if it is not in the public interest. This will be at the discretion of the police. https://childlawadvice.org.uk/information-pages/sexting/
ksfisher Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 6 hours ago, changed said: I think it should preclude them from any kind of leadership calling. All leaders are supposed to be role models, are supposed to be trustworthy, mentors, a judge - there is nothing that can crush faith in the priesthood like knowing you have to support pedophiles in leadership positions in order to enter the temple. I will not do it. You seem to be saying that once a person is a pedophile that they are always a pedophile. How about with a thief? Once a thief always a thief. Once an adulterer always an adulterer. Once a lier always a lier. I think they way the church currently does things is appropriate. A person who has abused minors in the past has an annotation on their record and they will not be given a calling which dealing with children or youth. I see no reason why this person could not, upon repentance and taking care of things legally, be allowed to serve in a position that does not involve youth. We have all sinned. There is not a bishop or relief society president or ordinary member that has not. 1
provoman Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Abulafia said: Provoman. That's a ridiculous point. It really is. Her sexting a boyfriend by sending a topless image? Are you saying that would put her on a sex registry for life? Are you saying that the civic authorities would prosecute and send her to prison? Now, if she were being encouraged by a 44 year old man to send pornographic images of herself then *he* should/would be in trouble. Because she's 15. She's a kid and the law would recognise that. I was illustrating the point of your "He who breaks the law must will be punished. Back to the House of Pain. Back to the House of Pain" policy you put forward. You demand that all teenagers membership be revoked for sexting - as it is the publication of child pornography and distribution of child pornography - and their membership cannot be restored until they turn themselves over law enforcement; this is your policy that you suggested be put in place. Edited September 30, 2018 by provoman
Abulafia Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 No. That's not what I was arguing at all. Why are you twisting this?
Abulafia Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 I'm being told that Utah has mandatory reporting for rape and serious child abuse where the information is not covered by priest/penitent privilege anyway. Don't you think that is a good thing on the whole?
provoman Posted September 30, 2018 Posted September 30, 2018 49 minutes ago, Abulafia said: No. That's not what I was arguing at all. Why are you twisting this? No one is twisting, it is what your proposed change would demand.
Abulafia Posted October 1, 2018 Posted October 1, 2018 7 hours ago, provoman said: No one is twisting, it is what your proposed change would demand. No. It isn't it really isn't.
Calm Posted October 1, 2018 Posted October 1, 2018 23 hours ago, Abulafia said: She's 15. So no. Here in the UK, Youth under 18 years old would be treated differently. But not all countries/states/provinces live by laws similar to the U.K., as my list above demonstrates. So in places where it is considered a crime for a 15 year old as much as a 17 or 18 year old, would it be a "yes"? 1
Calm Posted October 1, 2018 Posted October 1, 2018 (edited) 23 hours ago, ksfisher said: You seem to be saying that once a person is a pedophile that they are always a pedophile. How about with a thief? Once a thief always a thief. Once an adulterer always an adulterer. Once a lier always a lier. Not all pedophiles act on their inclinations. It is unfortunate that the inclination, the attraction itself has become the label for child s-xual abusers...especially since a large percentage of child s-xual abusers do not experience pedophilia. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/11/11/pedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are-two-different-things-confusing-them-is-harmful-to-children/ Quote In short: pedophilia and child sexual assault are two different things, and conflating them is not a good idea. This is not just a matter of semantics. For one thing, confusing psychiatric disorders (requiring treatment) and sex crimes (which may or may not follow from such disorders) is likely to hamper clear moral reasoning. But more importantly, it may actually increase harm to children. https://theconversation.com/the-causes-of-paedophilia-and-child-sexual-abuse-are-more-complex-than-the-public-believes-94915 Quote Not all those who sexually abuse children are paedophiles, with many abusers acting opportunistically or due to something other than a sexual preference for children. This distinction isn’t always well understood Edited October 1, 2018 by Calm 1
Abulafia Posted October 2, 2018 Posted October 2, 2018 Calm, I tried to comment here yesterday and it kept coming up as forbidden.
Abulafia Posted October 2, 2018 Posted October 2, 2018 Calm, to answer your question, sexting between teenagers, to me, is a whole different issue, and the law recognises that. I'm pretty sure a policy could and would recognise that. I'm talking about adults producing, distributing and/or watching child pornography. An 18 year-old man asking a child for pornographic images is dodgy, yes? In *changed case, the adult male was sent for counselling. It did no good. No! If you are sincere about repentance, you must turn yourself in before membership or full fellowship can be restored, and the Bishop or SP must urge the perpetrator to turn themselves in. Letters of apology should be sent to victims and their families, and children and families should receive counselling and therapy if required and beneficial - whether that be through LDS services or otherwise. That's common sense.
provoman Posted October 2, 2018 Posted October 2, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Abulafia said: Calm, to answer your question, sexting between teenagers, to me, is a whole different issue, and the law recognises that. Depends on the jurisdiction, which means for the US, 50 States with different laws. Edited October 2, 2018 by provoman 1
rpn Posted October 2, 2018 Posted October 2, 2018 (edited) On 9/30/2018 at 2:36 AM, Abulafia said: I am being told that one guy's bishop informed a confessor of theft that unless he turned himself in to authorities, true repentance wouldn't take place. Of course he couldn't force the guy, and he left it up to the guy, but that person did turn themselves in, and is serving jail time. That's true repentance. On 9/29/2018 at 5:45 AM, Abulafia said: 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. You are suggesting that one has to give up his (God established) constitutional rights in order to repent. I do not think that to be correct at all. (And I had occasion several years ago to ask priesthood leaders the same and up the chain agreed one did not.) Of course doing what one DOES have to do --- confession and restitution ----- does create evidence that could result in a conviction. And repentance might well require a guilty plea to a crime that one did commit or an agreement that the victim doesn't have to testify so as to not harm the victim further by taking up their time or making them relive something. But repentance does not require confession to the police or waiver of any other constitutional right. Isn't the real problem that disciplinary action is delayed while criminal proceedings happen, when a confession to a bishop by a perp, or when credible statements are made that child abuse has occurred, the person should be disciplined immediately? Of course the challenge is that discipline requires two witnesses. And bishops cannot disclose confessions without the permission of the person giving them. So it is impossible to meet the requirements of discipline when the perp is unwilling to allow their confession to be shared if there s not a victim and someone else with at least corroborating information. .Another problem is that sometimes in divorce/custody situations or other circumstances, people are falsely accused. So maybe one solution would be that the bishop could get a trespass order prohibiting a confessed child abuser from attending services or being at the church for any reason, immediately after hearing the confession. Or better, assign someone to be with him at all times while he/she is on church property thereafter, and release him from all callings and tell the quorum leaders and ward missionary leader and family history leaders he is not to participate in any way at the church or any lds church building. Edited October 2, 2018 by rpn
Tacenda Posted October 2, 2018 Posted October 2, 2018 Seems to me, the church wouldn't have to pay out as much money if they let the law handle it. Then the guilty can serve time, the abused can get justice. And then the offender after serving time can repent during that process and after. And then let the abused go after the abuser for monies if necessary. Of course maybe getting the big pay out is good too, not sure, which is best. But really weird how the church is paying the money, they didn't do anything wrong. And is the church some kind of representative of the abuser? Why is the church being sued? I guess the church is being sued because they knew of the abusers past history of abuse and still called them into a position that enable them to harm others, without the victims knowing the past history?
Rain Posted October 2, 2018 Posted October 2, 2018 3 hours ago, Abulafia said: Calm, to answer your question, sexting between teenagers, to me, is a whole different issue, and the law recognises that. I'm pretty sure a policy could and would recognise that. I'm talking about adults producing, distributing and/or watching child pornography. An 18 year-old man asking a child for pornographic images is dodgy, yes? In *changed case, the adult male was sent for counselling. It did no good. No! If you are sincere about repentance, you must turn yourself in before membership or full fellowship can be restored, and the Bishop or SP must urge the perpetrator to turn themselves in. Letters of apology should be sent to victims and their families, and children and families should receive counselling and therapy if required and beneficial - whether that be through LDS services or otherwise. That's common sense. I honestly would not want to know if my child were young enough and if one time abuse did not cause psychological damage (because the child was too young) or physical damage. I think letters of apology in such cases would cause much more harm than good for both parent and child. This is why a 1 way of repentance fits all plan doesn’t work. I am all for being open about things, but I do feel that there are a few rare times when letters of apology victimize some individuals a second time. 1
ksfisher Posted October 2, 2018 Posted October 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: Why is the church being sued? The church is being sued because it has money. If I was negligent and caused an accident at the church and someone was hurt the insurance company would go after the church, which has money, and not so much me, because I don't have money. 1
Abulafia Posted October 2, 2018 Posted October 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Rain said: I honestly would not want to know if my child were young enough and if one time abuse did not cause psychological damage (because the child was too young) or physical damage. I think letters of apology in such cases would cause much more harm than good for both parent and child. This is why a 1 way of repentance fits all plan doesn’t work. I am all for being open about things, but I do feel that there are a few rare times when letters of apology victimize some individuals a second time. Oh . Agreed. That's why I wrote, If beneficial.. and it would be up to suitably trained professionals together with parents who would decide that. But again, we aren't talking minor offences here. We are (aren't we?) talking about rape and serious sexual abuse and explotation of vulnerable kids and adults. I'm baffled by responses here. You commit a rape. You confess to a rape. That's a criminal offence. Let the courts decide the appropriate sentence..first time offenders etc. But heck..keep it in house? No.
Abulafia Posted October 2, 2018 Posted October 2, 2018 32 minutes ago, ksfisher said: The church is being sued because it has money. If I was negligent and caused an accident at the church and someone was hurt the insurance company would go after the church, which has money, and not so much me, because I don't have money. The Church gets sued because it has a duty of care. To reduce victims to moneygrabbers is awful.
Recommended Posts