Mormon Leaks document on handling Child Abuse

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

CV- this doesn't make sense to me.

There are very few people who have access to information and could answer the types of questions we're talking about. I don't know who they are, and if I did, I still wouldn't have access to them. There must be systems in place that allow for the flow of information. Those systems in the church don't exist today. That could change and I hope it does.

ETA- apparently Mormon Leaks has added over 300 pages of information on the issue of abuse in the church. I haven't had time to review yet but it looks mostly like information about specific cases of abuse going all the way back to the 60's. While I think it's important to know how large of a problem there is in the church, I am much more interested in knowing how the church responded in these cases. I'd like to know how they and their law firm engage the abusers and victims

Edited September 14, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[ttribe]

10 hours 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.  

I'm not comfortable with these characterizations of Smac's person.  I have no problem with calling out diversionary tactics and their implications, but this is over the top, in my opinion. 

[smac97]

11 hours 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.

I disagree.

Quote

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.  

I disagree that this is "{t}he real issue at hand here."  Even by your own reckoning, you only claim that "it appears the Church showed more concern for abuses thatn for the abused in at least some cases."

Lots of equivocation.  Ambiguity.  To prop up accusations that lack much in the way of evidence and reasoning.

Quote

This is a legitimate cause for concern.

I agree.

Quote

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.  

There's no evidence that a law firm is "involved in making ecclesiastical decisions."

Quote

This is the issue.  This is the question.  This is the concern.

No, it's not.

Quote

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?  

There are a few issues at hand.

Quote

Smac wants to talk about Ryan McKnight and how he "steals" Church documents.  

There is no question that he steals documents.  He openly admits it.  He brags about it.

And yet you still cannot help but put "steals" in scare quotes, as if this is somehow in doubt.

Quote

You know what, this is also a legitimate concern.  

I agree.

Quote

There are some serious ethical problems with Mormon Leaks and those who empower it.  But that is beside the point.  

So it's at once "a legitimate concern" and also "beside the point?"

Come again?

Quote

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. 

Melodramatic twaddle.

The law firm's role is to address legal issues, and hence would obviously have little or nothing to say about counseling or pastoral care of victims of abuse, which would fall solely within the responsibilities of the local leaders.

Quote

Do not be misled by Smac's dishonesty.  

A personal attack.  Nothing but.

Quote

He knows what the real issue is here.  

Again, there are a few issues at hand.

Quote

But he knows his position is lost.  

No, I don't know that.  To be frank, I don't think you understand what my position is.

Another personal attack.

Quote

It is plainly obvious -- to the honest observer -- that the Church and its law firm have some things to answer for.  

Um, no, it's not plainly obvious.

Quote

This conclusion cannot be avoided.  

Yes, it can.

Quote

The facts are the facts.  

The "facts" consist of a two-page spreadsheet from six years ago, pilfered at the behest and encouragement of Ryan McKnight.

Quote

But these are uncomfortable facts.

In the immortal words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

I think you are conflating your personal opinion with "facts."

Quote

These facts, in Smac's view, degrade the reputation of LDS Church leaders.

Nope.  That's not my view.

Yet another personal attack.

Quote

And it is the reputation of the Church and its leaders that must be preserved!  

I think the reputation of the Church and its leaders merit protection against false claims and mischaracterizations.  I will own that.

But what you are saying here is just a personal attack.

Quote

When people accuse Mormons of being in a cult, they usually have in mind people like Smac.  

And another personal attack.

Quote

Smac's slavish devotion to 15 HUMAN BEINGS is greater than his concern for victims of abuse.  

And another personal attack.

Quote

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.  

 I have said nothing of the kind.  This is a false statement.  And a personal attack.  And I've reported you to the mods for it.

Quote

Again, in slavish devotion to the Church.  Not principle.  Certainly not Jesus.  Certainly not God.

Yet another personal attack.

Quote

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

Yet another personal attack.

Quote

The Gospel can stand on its own.

And yet rather than utilize reasoning and argument and such, you have resorted to personal attacks and false statements.

Quote

Regardless of the weakness and missteps of its very flawed leaders and members.  

I agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CV- this doesn't make sense to me.

There are very few people who have access to information and could answer the types of questions we're talking about. I don't know who they are, and if I did, I still wouldn't have access to them. There must be systems in place that allow for the flow of information. Those systems in the church don't exist today. That could change and I hope it does.

ETA- apparently Mormon Leaks has added over 300 pages of information on the issue of abuse in the church. I haven't had time to review yet but it looks mostly like information about specific cases of abuse going all the way back to the 60's. While I think it's important to know how large of a problem there is in the church, I am much more interested in knowing how the church responded in these cases. I'd like to know how they and their law firm engage the abusers and victims

From your perspective, there may well be very few people who have access to information and could answer the types of questions you’re talking about. But it wouldn't take a lot of people anyway. Maybe I don’t understand the types of questions you’re talking about.

Is it learning how the Church managed each specific case and engaged each abuser and victim listed in the documents, both legally and ecclesiastically? If you can figure out how to effectively engage the right people (networking), I have every confidence they would tell you within the constraints of legal and ecclesiastic propriety and how you come across. I don’t think leaks, appeals to common consent and demands for transparency are a good substitute for that.

Edited September 14, 2018 by CV75

[clarkgoble]

21 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The problem is we don't have any information. For example, there are accusations against the church that they knew Bishop was a predator, and therefore shouldn't have been placed into a position of authority over vulnerable women. What did the church know, and when? What do they do when they are given information about abuse? Do they dissuade victims from going to law enforcement? Do they protect the abuser by keeping them in positions of authority? etc. There are a million questions that we don't have answers to. More than anything, I want to know what the church's policies are for how they treat these situations, along with what they actually did in these situations.

How many accusations of abuse are leveled against church leaders on an annual basis? How much money is spent on settlements? What is the purpose of the non-disclosure agreements they make victims sign? Is the church's primary goal to protect the reputation of the church or is it to protect the victim and help them recover? We don't know what the church does?

The church should be transparent with its policies, procedures, and historical data on how it has lived up to those policies and procedures (like an audit). I don't think anyone is calling for transparency about the victims, but if a perpetrator is a danger to others, then what is the church doing to protect others? IMO these are all fair questions the church should answer.

Thanks. That's really helpful.

I'd not necessarily agree mind you. I think in some cases it hurts the victim. Often, especially outside of Utah, it's pretty easy to figure out who the victim is from information. Second I'm not sure how some of the stuff is even knowable. i.e. what counts as dissuading victims? That's a pretty subjective point - especially for some of the cases where it makes a lot of sense to not want to go to the police. Likewise the complaint about PR vs. helping the victim is hugely subjective. 

Making the policies more public would be appropriate though. I agree there.

20 hours ago, changed said:

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

That seems mostly focused on drugs and pornography though isn't it?  I do agree more victim support groups would be nice. However for sexual abuse that can be trickier (IMO). I'd encourage people to go to a therapist and ask them rather than the Church having a list without their carefully monitoring the actions on that list.

I'd be curious as to what BlueDreams says here since she has a background in therapy I believe. I can just easily see a sexual abuse support group having strong biases towards views or behaviors many might disagree with.

21 hours ago, lostindc said:

You're not confused Clark, you're uneasy.  

Nope it was honestly confusion. This topic often gets discussed at such a high level of abstraction that it's really helpful to make concrete suggestions. Say what you will about Sam Young but at least he's reasonably clear what he's demanding.

20 hours ago, changed said:

In regards to "teenage interviews" if it's your child in the interview, what do you think proper protocol should be?  If we can't establish protocol because viewpoints are very different then maybe we need to stop the interviews until a consensus is made regarding how to keep our kids safe?

This is actually an example of what my concerns on. What on earth do you mean by "proper protocol"? I'm assuming you just mean the explicit instructions on how Bishops are to conduct interviews but it's not clear. I'm sure you're picking up that jargon from other contexts, but realize not everyone is familiar with jargon. And often jargon has slightly different senses from how people without that background understand it. (I'll confess I frequently do this in discussions from my own areas of knowledge and have to constantly watch out for it - terms like ontology or epistemology are clear to me but not to everyone else)

Anyway it's interesting you raise that since my daughter recently turned 12 and got a temple recommend interview. Despite our having taught her the facts of life and so forth she didn't quite understand what chastity meant. The bishop explained a bit to her but then told us to talk to her about it. That seems much wiser than the bishop trying to explain it. Now as I said we'd taught her all that but didn't focus on the word chastity for various reasons. So we had a special FHE to go over it with her and the rest of the kids again. But I certainly don't mind the Bishop asking. Indeed I think it was tremendously helpful to let us know where teaching was falling down.

Now if that's an issue for us, where we're not embarrassed to talk and teach about sex to our kids, I wonder what it's like for parents who are and who do a poor job teaching it. Honestly I think making sure parents teach their kids is pretty important - especially in this day and age of rampant sexualization and immorality. While I don't think the Bishop should get explicit, I most definitely do think the Bishop should be asking and consulting with the parents.

I don't know what training videos the Church offers new Bishops here so it's difficult for me to say much. I'd hope they do offer something. If they don't then I'd agree that's a problem.

But if parents have a problem with this, there seems an obvious solution. Don't let your kids go to the temple. But I strongly feel that if parents have trouble with it they ought ask themselves why and whether they're teaching their kids sufficiently about these issues.

 

 

[6EQUJ5]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet rather than utilize reasoning and argument and such, you have resorted to personal attacks and false statements.

Stating the truth is not a personal attack. You are an embarrassment to the faith you claim to defend.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Stating the truth is not a personal attack. You are an embarrassment to the faith you claim to defend.

Yet another personal attack.

-Smac

[Fly Fisherman]

44 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Stating the truth is not a personal attack. You are an embarrassment to the faith you claim to defend.

I rarely come to this site, but when I do, I often look for smac97's posts: they are full of logical points of view that I never would have thought of. His knowledge of legal issues and the logic he applies to the subjects of discussion is amazing, in my opinion. 

Calling him "dishonest" and an "embarrassment to the faith" is absurd. 

It appears to me that you and a few other posters can't counter his logic, so you resort to personal attacks.

I hope smac97 doesn't one day choose to stop posting here because of this, but I wouldn't blame him if he did. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Fly Fisherman said:

I rarely come to this site, but when I do, I often look for smac97's posts: they are full of logical points of view that I never would have thought of. His knowledge of legal issues and the logic he applies to the subjects of discussion is amazing, in my opinion. 

Calling him "dishonest" and an "embarrassment to the faith" is absurd. 

It appears to me that you and a few other posters can't counter his logic, so you resort to personal attacks.

I hope smac97 doesn't one day choose to stop posting here because of this, but I wouldn't blame him if he did. 

I doubt that will happen....he appears to almost live here 

I've wondered if smac is now retired or possibly employed by the church to spend so much time online?  I've heard they may employ some as apologists and am just curious (I don't know that for sure, of course and would find nothing wrong with that actually).  If he's working full time as an attorney, I cannot imagine how he finds the time to be on here so much during the day and write such lengthy, detailed posts!

Either way, I don't care for personal attacks and have seen them from both sides here.  If someone does not care for how another person posts on here, they should just skip reading what they write or put them on ignore (I haven't done that, but do skip many of the very long, tediously broken down posts).  

I honestly don't see why everyone can't be respectful and civil even if we disagree.  I admit that I've gotten worked up at times (and over certain topics) and have just had to step away from the computer....seems silly, but it happens to the best of us!

Edited September 14, 2018 by ALarson

[Hestia]

6EQUJ5's posts have already been handled and he has been banned from the thread.  Everyone can stop reporting them now.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I doubt that will happen....he appears to almost live here 

I've wondered if smac is now retired or possibly employed by the church to spend so much time online?  I've heard they may employ some as apologists and am just curious (I don't know that for sure, of course and would find nothing wrong with that actually).  If he's working full time as an attorney, I cannot imagine how he finds the time to be on here so much during the day and write such lengthy, detailed posts!

 

First, CFR on the rumor mongering that the Church ""employs   some as apologists."  (I know you couched it in weasel words, but you could at least tell us your source for the rumor).

 

Second, I don't see how the subject of how Smac spends his time falls under the category of your business.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

@smac97and @Scott Lloyd

I've been having a conversation with @HappyJackWagon (see summary link below) about given the right approach, he can get his question answered. Without taking on the task of detailed explanations, would you agree that this is possible for someone to figure out, and that in your respective fields of expertise (as well as others), it is not much of a mystery? Thank you --

Posted 5 hours ago 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

First, CFR on the rumor mongering that the Church ""employs   some as apologists."  (I know you couched it in weasel words, but you could at least tell us your source for the rumor).

Second, I don't see how the subject of how Smac spends his time falls under the category of your business.

 

Talk about a frivolous CFR. You're asking him to provide a reference for something he clearly stated was "heard" and "I don't know that for sure, of course and would find nothing wrong with that actually" He is NOT claiming a fact.

It's crazy that a discussion board would include rumors. And this one seems to be clearly labeled.

I am curious why you are so upset by this rumor. It's just something he heard. What's the big deal. He even stated he didn't see anything wrong with it if it's true. Why do you take such offense?

[Thinking]

This non-attorney has a legal question.

Can Mormon Leaks be held legally culpable in some way for leaking this Special Investigations document, or does this fall into the "we think they are being unethical, but there's nothing we can do about it" category?

[Abulafia]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/mormon-missionaries-admitted-sexually-abusing-children-church-didnt-refer-police-leaked-documents/

 

I found the angle of the Raw Story article interesting.  They appear to be focusing in on the issue of keeping things in house and not reporting to authorities.

 

I think this leak is garnering interest, not because people are interested in *salacious details* , but because there is a growing and widespread belief that the actions, policies and culture of many religious organisations can serve to harbour and even attract abusers.

 

In the early 2000s, according to the Risk assessment dept. of the church, (in the deposition testimony in the Frank Curtis case) there was no overall accounting of how many abusers there were in the church, though this leak appears to show that may have changed. 

 

"From Deposition testimony of Dwayne Liddell, Risk Management Director for LDS Church on Church Child Abuse Safe Practices and Risk Management:

…No Screening out of child molesters

The church does not use screening forms with respect to church members who are called to work with children.  They do not screen “because the church is founded on religious tenets and is governed by ecclesiastical leaders. It is not part of the program.”

…on combatting Child Sexual Abuse within the priesthood and by missionionaries

“Sexual abuse is a moral transgression and is dealt with in an ecclesiastical manner.  It is a risk that is managed by the ecclesiastical leaders according to the scripture and tenets of the church. The actions the church leadership has taken with respect to the loss ultimates are adequate.”    

…on the Extent of Child Abuse in priesthood

The Risk Management department has never conducted a survey to determine the extent to which child sexual abuse happens within the church membership.  Liddell is not aware of any such surveys.  He is not aware of any database or central registry that tracks members or ex-members who have been accused of sexually abusing children.  He is aware that the Boy Scouts maintains a database of individuals who have been rejected or dismissed as scout leaders as a result of child sexual abuse.  Risk Management has never done any surveys to see if the churchs reporting policies in the area of child sexual abuse are being complied with.  Liddell, Dwayne     69-70
         
…on Flagging of Membership Records

“If a member had been disciplined for child abuse, the membership record would be flagged.  The flagged membership record would travel with the member until the ecclesiastical leader felt the flag should be removed.”  Liddell testifies he has never, even once, seen a flag but knows it is on the membership certificate.  He does not know if the flag gets removed if a member is re-baptized. Liddell, Dwayne     76-79

…on Tracking known Pedophiles within the church

 because of design flaws in database indexing system it is impossible for church to know whether a current member was previously excommunicated for child sexual abuse. This is because a new membership number is issued upon re-baptism and the record does not show any prior record reference numbers.

…on Expert Consultations re: Child Sexual Abuse

Church leadership has not consulted with anyone outside the church relating to problem of child sexual abuse risk management. 

….on the Church Help Line

Its for clergy only, not for victims. Liddell was not responsible for setting up the help line.  He has no input into how it is staffed or its mission.  Risk Management does not receive any information re: frequency of use of the help line. Liddell, Dwayne 79-80

A pedophile who is excommunicated gets a new membership record upon rebaptism which has no reference to the prior history of abuse.(‘Clean-slate’ doctrine at work.) No method of locating prior membership records because individual given a new membership number. System will not permit searching prior records without prior reference number. Affidavit of Dwayne Liddell Re Records Retention Policy

… on Tracking Pedophiles who are merely disfellowshipped for child sexual abuse following a church court

Membership record with notation (red-flag) need not be transmitted to Church Headquarters if only Disfellowshipped. Liddell Affidavit of May 28, 2001"

[Calm]

Was that current practice or when the abuse actually happened (91)?

Edited September 14, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Talk about a frivolous CFR. You're asking him to provide a reference for something he clearly stated was "heard" and "I don't know that for sure, of course and would find nothing wrong with that actually" He is NOT claiming a fact.

It's crazy that a discussion board would include rumors. And this one seems to be clearly labeled.

I am curious why you are so upset by this rumor. It's just something he heard. What's the big deal. He even stated he didn't see anything wrong with it if it's true. Why do you take such offense?

I disagree that it's a "frivolous CFR." And merely asking for a source is not necessarily an indication of being upset.

I find that unsubstantiated rumor -- even if it's the coyly expressed "I hear tell" kind of stuff -- very often rivals truth in appealing to the public mind. When that happens, ascertaining a source is very important in determining the reliability of the information. For that reason, professional journalists routinely attribute to identified sources the information they publish or broadcast. That is one thing that distinguishes professional journalism from social media or back-fence chatter. One thing that makes this one of the better, more serious discussion boards is that participants are required when asked to document claims they make.

So, I'm simply asking ALarson if he can identify the  source of the rumor he is spreading here that the Church "employs ... apologists." It will help me and others to determine how seriously to take that claim.

I wonder why you are getting so spun up over it. Do you have some vested interest in not having it confirmed or debunked?

 

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Abulafia]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Was that current practice or when the abuse actually happened (91)?

Not sure, Calm. I took it as current practice in 2001. I took the snippet from the UK Lantern Project, which serves to shine a light on the way multiple religious organisations deal with child abuse (And abuse in general). 

 

I have the book on Frank Curtis,  not an easy read. Will check the notes on the deposition.

 

I would hope that the victim's experience will always come first and foremost, but this leak certainly indicates the legal issues take precedence at KM. Their job is to protect the church from litigation afterall. 

 

I would hope that these issues would today be treated as crimes and where possible both victim and perpetrator would inform the police.  

 

I agree with the raw story focus, that police should be informed. It's  the kindest thing to do in the long run, imho. Both for victim and perpetrator. 

Background checks on all men and women working with children and vulnerable people would be a great start.

 

This is a no-brainer for teachers working with young children. I've had numerous background checks and am pleased to have them. 

 

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I found the angle of the Raw Story article interesting.  They appear to be focusing in on the issue of keeping things in house and not reporting to authorities.

How do you know there was no reporting? The leaked document is a summary style work paper outlining ongoing investigations, not a detailed write-up of the entire situation case-by-case.

It seems clear to me that at least of the couple of cases have already been reported (which is why legal is monitoring them, due to potential media attention), and in the one case where the mission department was "reluctant" to send the missionary back to his home country, the note from legal is that the Elder "needs to go home." It doesn't bother me if they try to handle that particular situation in a manner to best for everyone involved (e.g., persuading the young man to self-report his crimes in his home jurisdiction so the church doesn't have to report him themselves).

 

[Abulafia]

15 minutes ago, Amulek said:

How do you know there was no reporting? The leaked document is a summary style work paper outlining ongoing investigations, not a detailed write-up of the entire situation case-by-case.

It seems clear to me that at least of the couple of cases have already been reported (which is why legal is monitoring them, due to potential media attention), and in the one case where the mission department was "reluctant" to send the missionary back to his home country, the note from legal is that the Elder "needs to go home." It doesn't bother me if they try to handle that particular situation in a manner to best for everyone involved (e.g., persuading the young man to self-report his crimes in his home jurisdiction so the church doesn't have to report him themselves).

 

I don't know for sure, but really, that's not the point.   This media outlet chose to focus on there being no evidence of reporting.

 

"Newly-leaked documents show that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints internally investigated sex abuse allegations against missionaries and a stake president but did not refer them to law enforcement"

 

Given the response has been this:

"KUTV reported that its reporters reached out to Kirton McKonkie and the LDS church but neither responded."

 

One would assume that the assessment is correct.

[webbles]

39 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I don't know for sure, but really, that's not the point.   This media outlet chose to focus on there being no evidence of reporting.

 

"Newly-leaked documents show that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints internally investigated sex abuse allegations against missionaries and a stake president but did not refer them to law enforcement"

 

Given the response has been this:

"KUTV reported that its reporters reached out to Kirton McKonkie and the LDS church but neither responded."

 

One would assume that the assessment is correct.

This made me wonder if we have any news articles of sexual abuse from 2012 that dealt with missionaries.  I did a quick search and found two possible cases from 2012-2013 that could be the last entry:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865573471/Kaysville-man-accused-of-child-rape.html

https://www.idahostatejournal.com/members/utah-man-sentenced-for-crime-committed-on-lds-mission-in/article_a7ff4c2a-6713-11e3-87d6-001a4bcf887a.html

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

I don't know for sure, but really, that's not the point.   This media outlet chose to focus on there being no evidence of reporting.

No evidence of reporting in one particular document doesn't tell you anything about whether or not there has been no reporting whatsoever. 

And, again, the leaked document describes ongoing investigations, not what the ultimate conclusion was for each case.

It's like focusing on the police having not arrested someone for a crime while they are still in the process of investigating the matter. It may be true that they haven't made an arrest at one particular moment in time, but that doesn't mean that there will be no arrest made ever. 

 

Quote

"Newly-leaked documents show that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints internally investigated sex abuse allegations against missionaries and a stake president but did not refer them to law enforcement"

I think this is intentionally misleading. The journalist intends for people to read this as saying that the church didn't refer them to law enforcement ever, but that is not what the "documents show." And it's not possible for the document to show that because it's just a snapshot of where things are at a given point in the investigation. 

Also, why would the church need to report something to law enforcement if law enforcement was already aware of the situation? The entry about the stake president being accused of touching a girl at the school where he teaches is, in my opinion, most likely on legal's radar precisely because it had already been reported to the local authorities...that's why they are tracking it, due to the potential media coverage.

I mean, honestly, what do you think the chances are that a student reported accusation of sexual abuse by a school employee is going to be handled by anything other than the local authorities? 

 

Quote

Given the response has been this:

"KUTV reported that its reporters reached out to Kirton McKonkie and the LDS church but neither responded."

One would assume that the assessment is correct.

One would assume that whose assessment is correct, exactly? RS's or KUTV's? 

When the KUTV reporters "reached out," what exactly did they ask? When did they ask it (e.g., five minutes before the end of business on a Friday)? 

And what sort of response would you expect to get from Kirton McKonkie anyway? Have you ever tried asking a lawyer about their clients / cases before? 

I'm sorry, but the only way you can assume the worst is if you are looking for the worst. There isn't enough information to know one way or the other with certainty. 

Ironically, if the document published by MormonLeaks were truly leaked, in all it's unredacted glory, we would be able to hunt down the various individuals and see whether or not any ever were prosecuted. Why don't you ask Mr. McKnight to release the original document and stop giving shelter to predators? I suspect he knows full well that doing so would open him up to liability, and that's not his style. Putting out just enough information to try and make the church look bad on the other hand...

 

 

[Abulafia]

Amulek, in all seriousness,  the church doesn't need Ryan McKnight to make it look bad when dealing with abuse, either of adults or children.  It already looks bad.  What the church needs to do is strengthen polices and procedures,  and work to change the culture so that it will *no longer* look bad.

It's made baby steps...but it hasn't any where near, gone far enough.

 

This isn't just an LDS issue is it. It encompasses many organisations, religious and secular.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

This made me wonder if we have any news articles of sexual abuse from 2012 that dealt with missionaries.  I did a quick search and found two possible cases from 2012-2013 that could be the last entry:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865573471/Kaysville-man-accused-of-child-rape.html

https://www.idahostatejournal.com/members/utah-man-sentenced-for-crime-committed-on-lds-mission-in/article_a7ff4c2a-6713-11e3-87d6-001a4bcf887a.html

The missionary shown in the DN article is my former neighbor's son. He was adopted as a young child, not saying this totally excused this behaviour, but he was horrendously sexually abused by his birth parents who were addicted to meth. I don't know that our former neighbors even got him mental help. He was a good son, and worked his guts out on their 1/2 acre lot. He wasn't allowed to drive even at 18 to his work at Lagoon. They were pretty tough on him, still no excuse. There were other adopted children, 3 girls, I believe it was between he and his adopted sister who was under 14 at the time. He didn't serve much time, he lived with his grandparents in Nevada on house arrest. He is now married and very close to his adoptive family and sisters, including the one I believe he raped. So happy ending, but still so sad. He came into the adoptive family, my neighbors, when he was around 7, 8, or 9 can't remember. I just remember that he was a good boy, just had alot of crap to deal with. So I guess everyone has a story behind the news stories. I hope he won't ever repeat this and hopefully is getting a lot of counseling.

[Amulek]

23 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Amulek, in all seriousness,  the church doesn't need Ryan McKnight to make it look bad when dealing with abuse, either of adults or children. It already looks bad.

Looks bad to whom? Aside from hostile ex-Mormons and militant atheists, I think most folks believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pretty much has it's act together.

 

Quote

 What the church needs to do is strengthen polices and procedures,  and work to change the culture so that it will *no longer* look bad.

It's made baby steps...but it hasn't any where near, gone far enough.

I'll bite: what steps could the church take that would be "enough" for your liking?