Mormon Leaks document on handling Child Abuse

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, changed said:

 

The church's concern for victims can also be deduced by the number of support groups out there.

Try this out - go to: https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/?lang=eng

How many groups exist in your area to:

1. a) support addicts
2. b) support "victims" or friends / families of addicts?

In my area, there are 9 face-to-face meetings within 25 miles for addicts and only 4 groups that support what I would term "victims" or friends/family/spouse of addicts.  

I have personally experienced this - abusers are going to support groups, and there is no support group for victims in my area.

 

To be fair, some of this is tied to the victims or families of addicts not wanting to attend said support groups. It's seen as the addict's problem that they need to fix, not theirs... Sometimes they could use the support and don't want it....some also just aren't as deeply effected and are fine without it or choose other means of support (therapy, friends, faith, books, etc). I also saw this same problem when I went to an AA meeting v. an al-anon meeting that was unrelated to the church...there's fewer meetings and less attendees. Likewise there are also attendants that are pressured or sometimes even mandated to attend. Due to the nature of being a victim, though it may be encouraged, most try not to insist or pressure a move they're not comfortable with. Likewise addiction groups are not necessarily all perpetrators of abuse (Though, obviously there's overlap).

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 14, 2018 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think I'm understanding you. I agree that common consent would be a best practice IF it were practiced. The only common consent in perfunctory acceptance of individuals who hold callings and then by extension everything they do. IMO for there to be true common consent there must be knowledge and there is no knowledge without information. If the church wanted to practice common consent it would do a much better job at informing its members about how it operates, what it plans to do, and even who it is calling to positions (before the vote is asked for).

I don't understand your comment about psychically being comfortable with bridging the gap of spiritual and temporal.

I agree that the document doesn't show nearly enough information. It is just one leaked document. If we, as a church, want to understand how the institutional church and its leaders respond to abuse, what policies are in place and how they are followed, the church would need to provide some information. But the church doesn't provide info. I think the church and its highest leaders follow the philosophy that members don't need to know, and shouldn't know what they are doing. I don't think they feel accountable to the membership. If they did, they would take a much different approach to transparency and common consent.

I think exercising much prayer and faith, and understanding what is meant by Church laws, covenants, articles, and how the presiding priesthood councils and quorums function, helps one understand and appreciate just how well common consent is being practiced. There are only a few basic references to these topics in the D&C about it, yet a lot can be garnered from trying them out. It is a spiritual concept and cannot be explored through purely polemic or academic means, and it doesn't work for someone who doesn't integrate the pieces.

What question do you have about psychic comfort with bridging spiritual and temporal pursuits? One example that comes to mind is that some people are comfortable sustaining the payment of tithe as part of the abundant life; some simply can’t buy into that relationship whether they pay their tithe or not. Which person do you think will possess a higher expectation for fiscal and business transparency?

I think if anyone wishes to understand how the institutional Church and her leaders respond to abuse, what policies are in place and how they are followed (beyond what the Church has published in the handbooks and trainings for example), he would have to begin with conversations with the right people and develop those interpersonal, investigative, and critical thinking skills until he attains the righteous desires of his heart. Much of the way conclusions have been drawn and demands have been made in this tread demonstrate the opposite of that.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

To be fair, some of this is tied to the victims or families of addicts not wanting to attend said support groups. It's seen as the perp's problem that they need to fix, not theirs... Sometimes they could use the support and don't want it....some also just aren't as deeply effected and are fine without it or choose other means of support (therapy, friends, faith, books, etc). I also saw this same problem when I went to an AA meeting v. an al-anon meeting that was unrelated to the church...there's fewer meetings and less attendees. Likewise there are also attendants that are pressured or sometimes even mandated to attend. Due to the nature of being a victim, though it may be encouraged, most try not to insist or pressure a move they're not comfortable with. Likewise addiction groups are not necessarily all perpetrators of abuse (Though, obviously there's overlap).

 

With luv,

BD

Do you know if the church has a support group program for victims of sxual abuse? I don't recall having ever seen one.

The local Methodist church in my town advertises a number of support groups: Men's grief group, Women's grief group, Abuse survivors group, etc

[CV75]

2 hours ago, lostindc said:

Do you think that the average minor wants to discuss sexual topics with an adult male in what is often a one-on-one situation?  Do you think maybe that's not common consent and perhaps it's the will of the parent and Church over the child?  

 

I don’t approach the Gospel as a population-based construct. I take the children of God as individuals, which is reflected in how the covenants and ordinances are made, or how we minister to them (one-by-one, and not in terms of averages) or voting blocks.

I think a reply to your first question requires consideration of  individual context and actual circumstances in place. Some minors might want to, some might not. Being a spiritual principle, common consent extends to the spiritual principle of children having claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age (D&C 83: 4-5), addressing the concerns about what one might expect regarding minors, so how well they interview, how well their priesthood leader interviews, how well they are parented, etc. could have an impact on whether or what they want to discuss.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I think if anyone wishes to understand how the institutional Church and her leaders respond to abuse, what policies are in place and how they are followed (beyond what the Church has published in the handbooks and trainings for example), he would have to begin with conversations with the right people and develop those interpersonal, investigative, and critical thinking skills until he attains the righteous desires of his heart. Much of the way conclusions have been drawn and demands have been made in this tread demonstrate the opposite of that.

Who are these "right people"? At the local level we have access to bishops and SP's. IMO they are not the right people. They have no more information than I do about how the church operates in these matters. So who is the right person and how is that person accessed? I think there is so much speculation because there is NO mechanism in the church for getting information like this. I'd be thrilled to access the "right people" and ask question and get those question answered but the reality is that the church isn't set up to work that way. The average member does not have access to the right people and therefore has no way to get the information to which they could apply their critical thinking skills.

There is a dearth of information and access.

[Jeanne]

44 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Hi Jeanne, 

I finally had a moment to read the document. I haven't read the entire thread and other's concerns. But I am TBM and I'm not all that concerned with this leak. It doesn't disturb me. My biggest concern is with the one with the 8 year old and little action being taken. Of course, the laws in that area may drastically differ (it's stated as "foreign country) as is the local protocol. I see a snapshot in the middle of a conversation to monitor and address concerns. Knowing the general procedure would be nice, but I would be lying if I stated I would absolutely need this is or be clamoring to have it....I'd likely read it out of curiosity once and call it good. 

I can definitely comprehend a reason to not know more...it's called confidentiality. Which is big in several of the fields that such a case may be handled with. INcluding lawyers, therapist, and ecclesiastical leaders. Its that confidentiality that often allows these entities to work with efficiency. It doesn't mean that I think that there aren't cost. It's not a perfect solution to everything. But its still needed and less likely to cause issues than complete openness about every single procedure. 

It is my church and one day my children and the salvation to those I care about. Abuse and Assaults also plays a major part in my therapy sessions. Struggles with church and at times bishops or leaders can play a part in this. Honestly from where I stand, some of this feels like barking up the wrong tree. Assaults, rapes, etc are common in my office. They have themes and trends that sometimes feel like they're playing out like a script. We're a sick society at large. But I haven't seen something extremely intrinsic that entail some form of special enabling of abuse in the church. Not recently at least. With the catholic diocese there was a clear pattern of behaviors and procedures that enabled predators to stay hidden in the flock for years. I simply haven't seen that hierarchical trend. 

What I have seen is at times individual, based on the predominant culture of the local region, and I would likely face similar battles if my children were abused from other non-church outlets. This can include pushing to "forgive" and not press charges. For bishops to give a slap of the wrist in discipline or to treat rape or assaults in the same way one might treat any other form of sexual misbehavior (on the perps side....luckily I've heard very very little of this for victims in the area I reside). It can include not seeking understanding about rapes and sexual assault in general (again, something that's prevalent in most societies period) and for individual cases as a whole. Sometimes several of these are tied to having only one side of the story (the perps) and not having the other because they're not apart of that ward.

I don't know how opening the files for public use would actually help these concerns and make a significant difference in the lives of the victims and be a better balance of justice and mercy. Juts as I find it a little baby/bathwater for Sam Young to insist that the best way to have overzealous BYI's is to remove them all together, never ask or talk about the LOC to youth, and that the church is dangerous because of it.  Okay, not just a little. I actually believe that is the wrong direction for us to head if what we're aiming for is healthier sexual knowledge in the church. 

In general, I stand in making differences in my faith community.  I strive to work with my leaders in sharing my perspectives and knowledge on these subjects. I want betterment to get closer to Zion. I see a lot of positive outlets and ways that people are trying to do that. Not perfectly, often not loudly, but doing it. I don't feel a need to take drastic, news catching methods, to do so. I don't feel a need to do something unethical in order to further dialogue (I find leaking info as that...I'm not an ends justify means sort of person 9 times out of 10). 

 

 

  With luv,

BD

Thank you for taking the time for this response.  It is what I needed to understand the perspective that others see.  Thanks again.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

What is your IRL name?  What is your social security number?  What is your username/password for your bank account login?  What is the combination to the safe in your basement?  Where do you live?

Do you feel comfortable publicly answering these questions, given that I have neither a right nor a need to know any of this?

Gotta love the loaded question, BTW.  

It's not a matter of belief.  It's a statement of fact.

The ends justify the means.  Gotta love it.

You would be screaming bloody murder if Mr. McKnight used that logic as justification to encourage your friends and family steal your personal and sensitive information and publish it against your

-Smac

You don't have a right to his personal information. He owes you nothing.

I acknowledge that.  Freely.

That is the point I am making, in fact.

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You have no standing or purpose in receiving his personal information. EVERYONE knows that. It's not in dispute.

Excuse me for a moment.  I have to go adjust my Irony Meter.  It's about to explode.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
v

Okay!  I'm back!  😀

Actually yes, it appears to be very much in dispute.

You would be screaming bloody murder if someone (let's call him "Jack") who approached you and A) made peremptory demands that you publish your private and sensitive information to the world in a way satisfactory to Jack's personal expectations, B) issued an ultimatum for your failure to comply that involves Jack encouraging your friends and family and co-workers to violate your trust and steal your private and sensitive information and send it to Jack so he can publish it without your consent, and C) actually carries through with that threat.

And you would be justified in your protests.  Jack has no right to make such demands regarding your private information.  You owe him nothing.  Jack has no standing or legitimate purpose in receiving your personal information.  EVERYONE knows that. It's not in dispute.

But when this sort of behavior is aimed at the Church, then the thing that "EVERYONE knows," the thing that is "not in dispute," suddenly goes out the window.  

So you are entitled to exercise control over your personal and private information.  But the Church is not.

You are entitled to disregard demands by "Jack" that you capitulate to his personal and subjective expectations of "transparency" regarding your personal and sensitive information.  But the Church is not so entitled.

"EVERYONE knows that" privacy rights are important, and that theft and encouragement of theft is bad.  Except, it seems, when the target of such theft and deprivation of privacy is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And then all bets are off.  And what "EVERYONE knows" suddenly becomes conveniently malleable and forgettable.

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What is in dispute is how much right members of the church have to information about the church.

And yet despite numerous requests for explanations and clarifications about what "more transparency" and "some accountability" mean, we've so far seen bupkis.

If a missionary in, say, Texas sexually abuses a teenager there, why does the Church need to be "transparent" about that?  Report the matter to civil authorities (if possible), I get that.  But why publish this information?  Whence cometh the "need to know?"  The "right to know?"

And how much detail?  Do we need to know names?  Dates?  How many instances of abuse?  Which body parts were involved?  

I am open to the idea of "more" in the abstract.  But what substantive ideas have been presented here?  Any framework?  And specific proposals?  What limiting principles do you have in mind?  Any?  None?

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem to claim that members have no right to information. I disagree.

Facile.

Strawman.

Inaccurate.

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is a difference in philosophy about what information an institution like the church should make available to its members. But your continual attempt to falsely compare the relationship between the church and its members and 2 totally unrelated individuals is a false comparison.

I think it's quite a good comparison.

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are a smart person so I'm not sure how you don't see the difference. I'm beginning to believe it's intentional. You have no right to his personal information

And you have no right to know the details about elder so-and-so's sexual misconduct, or sister so-and-so having committed incest, or brother so-and-so's sexual abuse of his children.

As to virtually all such circumstances, you have neither the right nor the need to know such things.

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but members DO have the right to know what their church is doing and has done.

The members have all sorts of information about "what their church is doing and has done."

What we don't have are the salacious private details.

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

HUGE difference here.

Not really.  And to the extent there is a difference, it is one of degree, not kind.

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Should the church be responsive to questions about its policies on sxual abuse

The Church has been very responsive.

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

and how it has handled those cases?

Generally, no.  Absent a right or need to know about the details of "those cases," such matters are none of your business.  Or mine.

We needn't be a bunch of gossipy busybodies.  Here's what I think:

Let the Church help where it can. 

Let the victims heal.  

Let the local leaders carry out their mandate regarding disciplinary proceedings.  

Let the perpetrators face civil authorities. 

Let the perps have the option of repenting and thereafter have some shred of their former dignity. 

Let us stop trying to foment mobocratic rage. 

Let us stop encouraging the execrable thievery of Ryan McKnight. 

To the extent we feel like providing feedback and constructive criticism to the Church, let's do it in ways that are conducive to the Spirit. 

If we have disagreements as to matters of church governance, let's review and apply the thoughtful and scripture-based and coming-from-an-apostle counsel set forth in Elder Oaks's excellent 1987 article, "Criticism." 

Let us stop presuming to make peremptory and public demands on the prophets and apostles who lead the Church. 

Let us not join hands with critics and opponents of the Church against these good and decent men. 

Let us pray for them, rather than rail against and publicly find fault with them. 

Let us listen to them, rather than encourage others to ignore and/or disrespect them.

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do members have a right to know anything about the function of their church?

With respect, your question is a bit absurd.  The members have all sorts of information about "the function of their church."

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And if members do deserve information, how might they go about getting that information?

Study.  Counsel.  Prayer.  Patience.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I acknowledge that.  Freely.

That is the point I am making, in fact.

Excuse me for a moment.  I have to go adjust my Irony Meter.  It's about to explode.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
v

Okay!  I'm back!  😀

Actually yes, it appears to be very much in dispute.

You would be screaming bloody murder if someone (let's call him "Jack") who approached you and A) made peremptory demands that you publish your private and sensitive information to the world in a way satisfactory to Jack's personal expectations, B) issued an ultimatum for your failure to comply that involves Jack encouraging your friends and family and co-workers to violate your trust and steal your private and sensitive information and send it to Jack so he can publish it without your consent, and C) actually carries through with that threat.

And you would be justified in your protests.  Jack has no right to make such demands regarding your private information.  You owe him nothing.  Jack has no standing or legitimate purpose in receiving your personal information.  EVERYONE knows that. It's not in dispute.

But when this sort of behavior is aimed at the Church, then the thing that "EVERYONE knows," the thing that is "not in dispute," suddenly goes out the window.  

So you are entitled to exercise control over your personal and private information.  But the Church is not.

You are entitled to disregard demands by "Jack" that you capitulate to his personal and subjective expectations of "transparency" regarding your personal and sensitive information.  But the Church is not so entitled.

"EVERYONE knows that" privacy rights are important, and that theft and encouragement of theft is bad.  Except, it seems, when the target of such theft and deprivation of privacy is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And then all bets are off.  And what "EVERYONE knows" suddenly becomes conveniently malleable and forgettable.

And yet despite numerous requests for explanations and clarifications about what "more transparency" and "some accountability" mean, we've so far seen bupkis.

If a missionary in, say, Texas sexually abuses a teenager there, why does the Church need to be "transparent" about that?  Report the matter to civil authorities (if possible), I get that.  But why publish this information?  Whence cometh the "need to know?"  The "right to know?"

And how much detail?  Do we need to know names?  Dates?  How many instances of abuse?  Which body parts were involved?  

I am open to the idea of "more" in the abstract.  But what substantive ideas have been presented here?  Any framework?  And specific proposals?  What limiting principles do you have in mind?  Any?  None?

Facile.

Strawman.

Inaccurate.

I think it's quite a good comparison.

And you have no right to know the details about elder so-and-so's sexual misconduct, or sister so-and-so having committed incest, or brother so-and-so's sexual abuse of his children.

As to virtually all such circumstances, you have neither the right nor the need to know such things.

The members have all sorts of information about "what their church is doing and has done."

What we don't have are the salacious private details.

Not really.  And to the extent there is a difference, it is one of degree, not kind.

The Church has been very responsive.

Generally, no.  Absent a right or need to know about the details of "those cases," such matters are none of your business.  Or mine.

We needn't be a bunch of gossipy busybodies.  Here's what I think:

Let the Church help where it can. 

Let the victims heal.  

Let the local leaders carry out their mandate regarding disciplinary proceedings.  

Let the perpetrators face civil authorities. 

Let the perps have the option of repenting and thereafter have some shred of their former dignity. 

Let us stop trying to foment mobocratic rage. 

Let us stop encouraging the execrable thievery of Ryan McKnight. 

To the extent we feel like providing feedback and constructive criticism to the Church, let's do it in ways that are conducive to the Spirit. 

If we have disagreements as to matters of church governance, let's review and apply the thoughtful and scripture-based and coming-from-an-apostle counsel set forth in Elder Oaks's excellent 1987 article, "Criticism." 

Let us stop presuming to make peremptory and public demands on the prophets and apostles who lead the Church. 

Let us not join hands with critics and opponents of the Church against these good and decent men. 

Let us pray for them, rather than rail against and publicly find fault with them. 

Let us listen to them, rather than encourage others to ignore and/or disrespect them.

With respect, your question is a bit absurd.  The members have all sorts of information about "the function of their church."

Study.  Counsel.  Prayer.  Patience.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you under the impression that those of us calling for transparency are wanting the church to release the salacious details of individual abusers and victims? I don't need names or any identifying information. That's not what's important. What's important is how the church responds to the abuse. In a case like Bishop I think it would be useful for the church to announce the result of a DC (as it sometimes does) if one were to be held. But again, the abuse is a personal issue between Bishop and Denson and the courts. BUT the church should explain their role. What did they know and when? Did they call Bishop to leadership positions after knowing of his abuse? That's an important question that needs to be answered. I'm interested in the church's policy and procedure and how well it follows them. The church has been accused of cover up. I think it would be very useful for the church to share information about its behavior so members can know how their church responded in this situation. There is no personal information required. Your comparison between requests for institutional transparency and an individual supplying personal ID and banking information is absurd.

I have attempted numerous times to explain how I would like the church to be transparent and what information they should share. NEVER have I suggested they provide another individual's personal information, unless naming a predator would protect others. I want to know if the church behaved badly or if they were responsible in the way the treat abusers and victims. Every person will have a different idea of what is appropriate and what's not so the church can't really play to what they think people want to hear. Just tell us how you handled the situations and we can decide for ourselves if the behavior is consistent with our expectations for the church. I've explained this numerous times and yet you keep making the false comparison that I (and others) want salacious details. No, we want procedural information which is hardly the same thing as requesting social security numbers and bank accounts.

IIRC you stated early in the thread that members do not have the right to know the kind of information that I'm looking for. Am I correct that you do not think members have a right to this kind of information or are you saying members don't have the right to the kind of personal information that no one is actually asking for? I am understanding you to take the position that church leadership is not accountable to the membership of the church for the policies and procedures they put in place to address issues of sxual abuse. Am I correct, or have I misunderstood you?

 

 

[lostindc]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you under the impression that those of us calling for transparency are wanting the church to release the salacious details of individual abusers and victims? I don't need names or any identifying information. That's not what's important. What's important is how the church responds to the abuse. In a case like Bishop I think it would be useful for the church to announce the result of a DC (as it sometimes does) if one were to be held. But again, the abuse is a personal issue between Bishop and Denson and the courts. BUT the church should explain their role. What did they know and when? Did they call Bishop to leadership positions after knowing of his abuse? That's an important question that needs to be answered. I'm interested in the church's policy and procedure and how well it follows them. The church has been accused of cover up. I think it would be very useful for the church to share information about its behavior so members can know how their church responded in this situation. There is no personal information required. Your comparison between requests for institutional transparency and an individual supplying personal ID and banking information is absurd.

I have attempted numerous times to explain how I would like the church to be transparent and what information they should share. NEVER have I suggested they provide another individual's personal information, unless naming a predator would protect others. I want to know if the church behaved badly or if they were responsible in the way the treat abusers and victims. Every person will have a different idea of what is appropriate and what's not so the church can't really play to what they think people want to hear. Just tell us how you handled the situations and we can decide for ourselves if the behavior is consistent with our expectations for the church. I've explained this numerous times and yet you keep making the false comparison that I (and others) want salacious details. No, we want procedural information which is hardly the same thing as requesting social security numbers and bank accounts.

IIRC you stated early in the thread that members do not have the right to know the kind of information that I'm looking for. Am I correct that you do not think members have a right to this kind of information or are you saying members don't have the right to the kind of personal information that no one is actually asking for? I am understanding you to take the position that church leadership is not accountable to the membership of the church for the policies and procedures they put in place to address issues of sxual abuse. Am I correct, or have I misunderstood you?

 

 

 

Smac isn't necessarily interested in truth or the wellness of others.  He's more interested in privacy.

 Based on Smac's posting in this thread, it's fair to say that he has the goal of defending the Church no matter the variables.  If Ryan McKnight receives a leak and it's published on Mormon Leaks, it doesn't matter how horrendous the content of the leak, Smac focuses on attacking McKnight and the methods of receiving the leak.  Smac is attempting to control the narrative with distraction tactics.  It's working in this thread to an extent, but we know the outside world has moved forward with accepting the leaks and analyzing the leaks.  It's up to Smac if he believes the leaks hold value (he can keep doing the "why game), if the stories of those that claim abuse are valid, if the Church is doing enough or can do more, etc.  Arguing for the sake of arguing is sometimes fun, but it's a real negative long term.

Poster banned for personal attacks.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do you know if the church has a support group program for victims of sxual abuse? I don't recall having ever seen one.

The local Methodist church in my town advertises a number of support groups: Men's grief group, Women's grief group, Abuse survivors group, etc

No. Not that I'm aware of at least. Generally what I see is having leaders, particularly bishops, be liaisons to therapy services for concerns like this or other things. There is often the capacity to have the church funds help with therapy sessions. A number of my clients have what we call "bishop pay" to alleviate or completely take over therapy costs. Which means a number of clients that wouldn't normally receive therapy, can get individual care.

I know with the original program for family support groups to addiction they fairly recently revamped what they gave, materials wise, for them. Groups not tied to this often focus on codependency concerns. The church's material doesn't, to help reach broader needs of the subsection of population. I wonder in part if the reason they don't have said groups is materials for them and a way to ensure that the basics of the course and knowledge is similar. But I would be entirely guessing on that note. 

 

With luv,

BD

[smac97]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you under the impression that those of us calling for transparency are wanting the church to release the salacious details of individual abusers and victims?

Since this thread is about a "leak" of salacious details, and since there has not been any meaningful/useful response to my repeated requests for clarification about the meaning of calls for "more transparency" and "some accountability," the answer to your question is "yes."

And it's not just the salacious details.  Gossip feeds itself.  Demands for details are apparently never satisfied, so yeah - we end up with demands for publication of gratuitous and salacious stuff (like what we are getting from the execrable MormonLeaks project).

Quote

I don't need names or any identifying information. That's not what's important. What's important is how the church responds to the abuse.

Which are addressed in the Church policies and guidelines.  You're a bishop, aren't you?  You're familiar with Section 17.3.2 of Handbook 1, are you not?

And what about the Church's announcement in March?  And its publication of guidelines providing further clarifation on "how the church responds to abuse?"  (with an accompanying letter from the First Presidency)?

And what about the Church's training provided to bishops? 

What about the helpline for bishops to contact attorneys and sort out legal difficulties? 

What about LDS Family Services?

What about bishops having funds and resources to refer victims out to receive counseling and assistance?

What about the Church's "zero tolerance" policy on abuse?

What about the Church's adherence to its mandate for disciplining members for misconduct (such as committing abuse)?

What about the Church's occasional publication of incidents involving misconduct by prominent leaders in the Church, such as Elder Hamula and Philander Knox?

What about the extensive and unequivocal statements from various general authorities condemning abuse?

I had assumed that you, claiming to be a bishop, would be familiar with these things.  Was that an unwarranted assumption?

Why aren't you addressing these?  Why are you not even mentioning these at all? 

These materials are chock-a-block full of guidelines for local leaders as to how to respond to situations involving abuse.  Why are you acting as if these things don't exist?

And if are saying "No, I want more," then what is it you want?  What framework are you proposing?  What additional details?  What limiting principles do you have in mind?  What provisions for privacy rights of the victims (and, to an extent, accused persons and convicted persons)?

As I see it, this thread has been a big fat waste of time.  An exercise in faultfinding and ark-steadying and armchair quarterbacking and fomenting some sort of moral panic.  It's not healthy or helpful.

Quote

In a case like Bishop I think it would be useful for the church to announce the result of a DC (as it sometimes does) if one were to be held.

The Church probably wouldn't announce a disciplinary council beforehand, but may announce the results (as it did with Philander Knox and Elder Hamula).

Quote

But again, the abuse is a personal issue between Bishop and Denson and the courts.

Well, not really.  It's a matter for public consumption now.  Thanks to Ryan McKnight and McKenna Denson.

Quote

BUT the church should explain their role. What did they know and when? Did they call Bishop to leadership positions after knowing of his abuse? That's an important question that needs to be answered.

Elder Asay is dead, Elder Wells is bound by the Priest/Penitent Privilege, and the Church has stated that it found out about the abuse allegations in 2010.

Quote

I'm interested in the church's policy and procedure and how well it follows them.

And you want to gauge that by using 34-year old allegations against Joseph Bishop?  Really?

Quote

The church has been accused of cover up.

By the oh-so-credible McKenna Denson.  Nevertheless, we'll see what comes out.  If there was a cover up, I think that needs to see the light of day.  

If someone who dislikes you ("Jack") were to accuse you of engaging in a "cover up," would you acquiesce to Jack's demands that you publicly disgorge any and all private information as Jack subjectively and arbitrarily deems appropriate and necessary?

Probably not.  But since the Church is in the crosshairs, and since it's been established that thievery and coercion and utter disregard of the Church's privacy rights are just okey dokey, then kowtowing is the order of the day.

Quote

I think it would be very useful for the church to share information about its behavior so members can know how their church responded in this situation.

I question that.

Quote

There is no personal information required.

The Church is a legal fiction.  It only exhibits "behavior" through its representatives (in this case, for example, Elder Wells and Elder Asay).

So of course there will be "personal information required."  You want to know who in the Church knew what and when.  And others would want to know the particulars of the "what." 

Quote

Your comparison between requests for institutional transparency and an individual supplying personal ID and banking information is absurd.

No, it's not.  The general principle we (should) agree on is that privacy rights are important and that theft is bad.

Except, it seems, for the Church.  In which case theft of its property by Mr. McKnight and his accomplices is just okey dokey, and its privacy rights don't matter.  Because "transparency."  Because some self-appointed anti-Mormon has arrogated to himself the role of arbiter as to how "transparent" the Church should be, and backs up that role by encouraging employees of the Church to steal for him so he can coerce "transparency" to his satisfaction.

You would scream bloody murder if Mr. McKnight assumed a similar role of self-selected arbiter of your rights to privacy and publication of your personal sensitive information.

Quote

I have attempted numerous times to explain how I would like the church to be transparent and what information they should share.

And yet here we are, still throwing out vague and barely-helpful-at-all phrases like "I would like the church to be transparent."

I'll try again: What substantive ideas have been presented here?  Any framework?  And specific proposals?  What limiting principles do you have in mind?  Any?  None?

Quote

NEVER have I suggested they provide another individual's personal information, unless naming a predator would protect others.

Of course you are suggesting this.  "The Church" knows exactly nothing.  It is a legal fiction.  What did Elder Wells know.  What did Elder Asay know.

Frankly, I'm not particularly bothered by these questions.  There is an ongoing legal action, so these questions are open for public discussion and debate.

But the broader concept of the Church being more "transparent" remains mystifying to me.  Transparent about what?  What does "more transparency" mean?  What does "some accountability" mean?  What metric would we use to gauge the sufficiency of "more?"

Quote

I want to know if the church behaved badly or if they were responsible in the way the treat abusers and victims. Every person will have a different idea of what is appropriate and what's not so the church can't really play to what they think people want to hear. Just tell us how you handled the situations and we can decide for ourselves if the behavior is consistent with our expectations for the church.

No proposed framework or parameters.  No limiting principles.  "Just tell us how you handled the situations" is so vague it's next to useless.

And even you admit that "every person will have a different idea of what is appropriate," so you are proposing someting that is hugely vague ("Just tell us how you handled the situations") while simultaneously admitting that it will not be satisfactory.

Not exactly a recipe for success.

Quote

I've explained this numerous times and yet you keep making the false comparison that I (and others) want salacious details.

Again, you admit that "every person will have a different idea of what is appropriate."

Surely you recognize that many of these "different idea{s} of what is appropriate" will include demands for "salactious details."  After all, there are no proposed framework or parameters in view.  No limiting principles.

Quote

IIRC you stated early in the thread that members do not have the right to know the kind of information that I'm looking for.

Well, I'm still not sure what "kind of information" it is that you are looking for.  

The members of the Church have access to all sorts of information about the Church's teachings.  And structure.  And guidelines to local leaders.  And discipinary procedures.  And instructions to work with law enforcement.  And instructions to focus on the welfare of victims.

But none of that matters.  The Veruca Salts are coming out to play, and they want more.  And after that, they want even more.

And don't bother trying to explain what "more" means, apart from "whatever the Church does isn't good enough."

Quote

Am I correct that you do not think members have a right to this kind of information or are you saying members don't have the right to the kind of personal information that no one is actually asking for? I am understanding you to take the position that church leadership is not accountable to the membership of the church for the policies and procedures they put in place to address issues of sxual abuse. Am I correct, or have I misunderstood you?

You are incorrect.  The Church has provided tons of information to the public about "the policies and procedures they put in place to address issues of sexual abuse."

And yet it's not enough. 

It will never be enough.  Faultfinding is the order of the day.  Running down the Church, no matter what it does, is the order of the day.

-Smac

Edited September 13, 2018 by smac97

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

 

Smac isn't necessarily interested in truth or the wellness of others.  He's more interested in privacy.

 Based on Smac's posting in this thread, it's fair to say that he has the goal of defending the Church no matter the variables.  If Ryan McKnight receives a leak and it's published on Mormon Leaks, it doesn't matter how horrendous the content of the leak, Smac focuses on attacking McKnight and the methods of receiving the leak.  Smac is attempting to control the narrative with distraction tactics.  It's working in this thread to an extent, but we know the outside world has moved forward with accepting the leaks and analyzing the leaks.  It's up to Smac if he believes the leaks hold value (he can keep doing the "why game), if the stories of those that claim abuse are valid, if the Church is doing enough or can do more, etc.  Arguing for the sake of arguing is sometimes fun, but it's a real negative long term.

Poster banned for personal attacks.

Banned for "personal attacks"?  His may be one of the most relevant posts of this entire thread and the entirety of it was focused on the tactics utilized by a principal defender in this thread; it had NOTHING to do with Smac as a "person" outside of his defense activities in this very thread.  Banning lostindc from the thread for his post is astonishingly stupid.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Banned for "personal attacks"?  His may be one of the most relevant posts of this entire thread and the entirety of it was focused on the tactics utilized by a principal defender in this thread; it had NOTHING to do with Smac as a "person" outside of his defense activities in this very thread.  Banning lostindc from the thread for his post is astonishingly stupid.

He said that smac isn't interested in the truth or the wellness of others.  I consider that an attack on smac's personal morals.  If a poster said that about you, you'd call them out on it in a second.  

[Jeanne]

30 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Banned for "personal attacks"?  His may be one of the most relevant posts of this entire thread and the entirety of it was focused on the tactics utilized by a principal defender in this thread; it had NOTHING to do with Smac as a "person" outside of his defense activities in this very thread.  Banning lostindc from the thread for his post is astonishingly stupid.

I am having a hard time believing that we an look at Smacs posts and see at least SOME personal attacks.  Something here seems wrong..but like you, ttribe, I see tactics rather than honest opinion with any kind of empathy from Smac.  Mods rule I guess.

[Calm]

Report smac if you feel he crosses the line.  I would ( my rule is if the entire post is a personal attack or very extreme usually or if that is all a poster is posting about).  

Add-on:  I also quote the offense if I think it might not jump out, though I don't report too many that don't, imo.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am having a hard time believing that we an look at Smacs posts and see at least SOME personal attacks.  Something here seems wrong..but like you, ttribe, I see tactics rather than honest opinion with any kind of empathy from Smac.  Mods rule I guess.

You are incorrect.  My statements here are my honest opinion.

As for "empathy," I don't know what you mean here.  Empathy for whom?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

You are incorrect.  My statements here are my honest opinion.

As for "empathy," I don't know what you mean here.  Empathy for whom?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Empathy for anyone who goes through sexual trials in life.  The church will always be right and you can't see that even when you say that men are men and not perfect.  I admire your intelligence...but your statements are put downs.

[Exiled]

50 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Banned for "personal attacks"?  His may be one of the most relevant posts of this entire thread and the entirety of it was focused on the tactics utilized by a principal defender in this thread; it had NOTHING to do with Smac as a "person" outside of his defense activities in this very thread.  Banning lostindc from the thread for his post is astonishingly stupid.

I agree that lostindc's post was merely about debate tactics. If the facts are bad, argue procedure counsel.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Empathy for anyone who goes through sexual trials in life. 

Meh.  You don't know me.  Just because my posting style is not emotionalistic doesn't mean I don't have 'em.  But my emotions aren't really up for discussion here.  And now you are resorting to personal attacks.  How 'bout we not do that?

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The church will always be right

I've never said that.

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

and you can't see that even when you say that men are men and not perfect. 

I see it.  

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I admire your intelligence...but your statements are put downs.

Whatever.

Back to the topic, yes?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He said that smac isn't interested in the truth or the wellness of others.  I consider that an attack on smac's personal morals.  If a poster said that about you, you'd call them out on it in a second.  

I see what you're saying, but I read that part of lostindc's statement in the context of the discussion of tactics.  My reading could be quite wrong, I admit.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Who are these "right people"? At the local level we have access to bishops and SP's. IMO they are not the right people. They have no more information than I do about how the church operates in these matters. So who is the right person and how is that person accessed? I think there is so much speculation because there is NO mechanism in the church for getting information like this. I'd be thrilled to access the "right people" and ask question and get those question answered but the reality is that the church isn't set up to work that way. The average member does not have access to the right people and therefore has no way to get the information to which they could apply their critical thinking skills.

There is a dearth of information and access.

The right people are various as as you prepare yourself to meet with them, and at that point they will definitely become evident to you. One thing for sure is, you don't need a pre-set "mechanism" designed by someone else! This is one reason I think paradigms and mindsets that involve and refer to the "average" member or the "average" minor are ineffective in getting the answers and information one seeks. This is like someone who is being coached in how to network for career purposes expects to be told which network they should plug into and voila. Successful networking for any purpose simply doesn't work that way. That said, I'm not here to coach anyone in networking, but that is one characteristic of Zion so no one just needs to practice making that work for them.

[Tacenda]

On 9/12/2018 at 2:38 PM, california boy said:

I want to see a document like this spreadsheet where the person is named, (redacted) the incident that occurred and the third column states that the information has already been passed on to the authorities who will determine whether a crime has been committed or not.  THAT would exonerate the church imo.  I don't blame the church when incidents like this occurs.  But the church is not the legal judge in these cases.  So they should do what is right and not get involved in determining any legal wrongdoing. The action should always be to turn the case over to the authorities.  No need to get the church lawyers involved at all.  

The leak would only be positive for the church, unlike this one.  IMO

Bingo!

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Very big apologies. I meant to link to the mormon leaks site. I felt it deserved its own thread as it was distracting from the Denson case.  

I am reading comments with interest. 

No worries, I was no trying to be harsh, I was just a bit confused at the lack of context. We all make errors at times, but should always endeavor you do better. 

[6EQUJ5]

21 hours ago, ttribe said:

Banned for "personal attacks"?  His may be one of the most relevant posts of this entire thread and the entirety of it was focused on the tactics utilized by a principal defender in this thread; it had NOTHING to do with Smac as a "person" outside of his defense activities in this very thread.  Banning lostindc from the thread for his post is astonishingly stupid.

I completely agree.  The tactics used by Smac are completely relevant and they need to be showed for what they are: dishonest rhetorical magic tricks.

The real issue at hand here, of course, is that it appears the Church showed more concern for abusers than for the abused in at least some cases.  This is a legitimate cause for concern. I hope we can learn more about how the Church plans to correct course and ensure that law firms are not involved in making ecclesiastical decisions.  This is the issue.  This is the question.  This is the concern.

But what does Smac want to blather on and on and on about in an effort to distract and deflect from the real issue at hand?  Smac wants to talk about Ryan McKnight and how he "steals" Church documents.  You know what, this is also a legitimate concern.  There are some serious ethical problems with Mormon Leaks and those who empower it.  But that is beside the point.  This question is, in no way whatsoever, related to the fact that the Church's law firm, Kirton McConkie, showed more concern for abusers, than the abused. 

Do not be misled by Smac's dishonesty.  He knows what the real issue is here.  But he knows his position is lost.  It is plainly obvious -- to the honest observer -- that the Church and its law firm have some things to answer for.  This conclusion cannot be avoided.  The facts are the facts.  

But these are uncomfortable facts.

These facts, in Smac's view, degrade the reputation of LDS Church leaders. And it is the reputation of the Church and its leaders that must be preserved!  

When people accuse Mormons of being in a cult, they usually have in mind people like Smac.  Smac's slavish devotion to 15 HUMAN BEINGS is greater than his concern for victims of abuse.  Of course, this should come as no surprise since Smac has argued quite stridently on this board that adult men should be allowed to ask young women if they masturbate.  Again, in slavish devotion to the Church.  Not principle.  Certainly not Jesus.  Certainly not God.

Don't be fooled by Smac.  Smac is a propagandist.  Smac is not a seeker of truth.

The Gospel can stand on its own. Regardless of the weakness and missteps of its very flawed leaders and members.  

 

Banned for personal attack.  On a fun note-this post has received the most reports that I've ever seen on the board.  

[Exiled]

28 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I completely agree.  The tactics used by Smac are completely relevant and they need to be showed for what they are: dishonest rhetorical magic tricks.

The real issue at hand here, of course, is that it appears the Church showed more concern for abusers than for the abused in at least some cases.  This is a legitimate cause for concern. I hope we can learn more about how the Church plans to correct course and ensure that law firms are not involved in making ecclesiastical decisions.  This is the issue.  This is the question.  This is the concern.

But what does Smac want to blather on and on and on about in an effort to distract and deflect from the real issue at hand?  Smac wants to talk about Ryan McKnight and how he "steals" Church documents.  You know what, this is also a legitimate concern.  There are some serious ethical problems with Mormon Leaks and those who empower it.  But that is beside the point.  This question is, in no way whatsoever, related to the fact that the Church's law firm, Kirton McConkie, showed more concern for abusers, than the abused. 

Do not be misled by Smac's dishonesty.  He knows what the real issue is here.  But he knows his position is lost.  It is plainly obvious -- to the honest observer -- that the Church and its law firm have some things to answer for.  This conclusion cannot be avoided.  The facts are the facts.  

But these are uncomfortable facts.

These facts, in Smac's view, degrade the reputation of LDS Church leaders. And it is the reputation of the Church and its leaders that must be preserved!  

When people accuse Mormons of being in a cult, they usually have in mind people like Smac.  Smac's slavish devotion to 15 HUMAN BEINGS is greater than his concern for victims of abuse.  Of course, this should come as no surprise since Smac has argued quite stridently on this board that adult men should be allowed to ask young women if they masturbate.  Again, in slavish devotion to the Church.  Not principle.  Certainly not Jesus.  Certainly not God.

Don't be fooled by Smac.  Smac is a propagandist.  Smac is not a seeker of truth.

The Gospel can stand on its own. Regardless of the weakness and missteps of its very flawed leaders and members.  

You might just get a non-believer to reconsider with comments like this 😎