Mormon Leaks document on handling Child Abuse

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Screening: “The Church goes to great lengths to screen volunteers who work with children and youth.”

What is the screening process? We already know there is no background check. What is done instead? 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I provided the link.  The data is there. It doesn't need an explaination from me.  There is no Christian church that falls below the Mormon Church.  

But that really doesn't mean anything, which I guess is is why it doesn't need an explanation!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

What is the screening process? We already know there is no background check. What is done instead? 

That is explained in the Newsroom article. See the details under the following subheadings:

"Process for calling leaders"

"Membership record annotations" 

"Convicted Abusers Not Permitted to Work with Children" which dovetails with "Congregations can provide great protection" and 

If this is an area of special interest for you, I recommend you become part of continually improving and strengthening the program to prevent and stop abuse by sharing your expertise in anti-abuse tactics and approaches with the bishop in your area. The ward is a community within a community and everyone is responsible for their community at every level.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is explained in the Newsroom article. See the details under the following subheadings:

"Process for calling leaders"

"Membership record annotations" 

"Convicted Abusers Not Permitted to Work with Children" which dovetails with "Congregations can provide great protection" and 

If this is an area of special interest for you, I recommend you become part of continually improving and strengthening the program to prevent and stop abuse by sharing your expertise in anti-abuse tactics and approaches with the bishop in your area. The ward is a community within a community and everyone is responsible for their community at every level.

You think it is appropriate for a Catholic to come in and tell a Bishop (LDS version) how the Church should be doing things?

I find the thought of a Saint ( LDS version) walking into a Catholic Church to lecture their bishop on antiabuse tactics unasked mortifying.

[webbles]

18 hours ago, Abulafia said:

So again..

1. Has the church ever conducted a survey to determine the extent of child abuse in church membership?

2. Does the church use screening forms for those working with children/vulnerable groups?

3. Will church leaders always call the police where a crime has been committed?

Just a Yes/No answer will do.

I was thinking about these questions today (at least #2 and #3) and what would be the yes/no answers.

For #3, I believe the answer is yes as far as allowed under law.  I think there are laws that restrict some confessions to be reported but I'm not a lawyer so I could be completely wrong.  Even reading the leaked spreadsheet, I think it leans more towards showing that the church does alert the police.

For #2, I think the answer is yes because of the temple recommend interview questions and other worthiness interviews.  It could probably be improved by maybe adding a background check for new converts and for people who move (maybe skipping it if they have a recentish temple recommend).  But if the person has been in the same ward for years, I don't see how a background check or a screening form is going to help.  The information that the background check would surface should already be known to the members of the ward.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

If this is an area of special interest for you, I recommend you become part of continually improving and strengthening the program to prevent and stop abuse by sharing your expertise in anti-abuse tactics and approaches with the bishop in your area. The ward is a community within a community and everyone is responsible for their community at every level.

 

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

You think it is appropriate for a Catholic to come in and tell a Bishop (LDS version) how the Church should be doing things?

I find the thought of a Saint ( LDS version) walking into a Catholic Church to lecture their bishop on antiabuse tactics unasked mortifying.

I think I'll bow out of this thread. I see that my own disgust at what has happened within my church is coloring what I say here. We all want to protect children from abuse and I'm grateful for that and very grateful that Mormons are working to make sure their children are safe, too.

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

I think I'll bow out of this thread. I see that my own disgust at what has happened within my church is coloring what I say here. We all want to protect children from abuse and I'm grateful for that and very grateful that Mormons are working to make sure their children are safe, too.

 

I appreciate your side on this, it's very needed. And if it were me in my state of craziness when it comes to people abused by church leaders in authority, I would march into any church and complain if it would do any good. I think one needs to go to the news or make a movie like "Spotlight". And they are doing this with the LDS church, a couple of documentaries I believe, are being made. The sooner the church speaks openly and apologetically, the better. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Tacenda

[Abulafia]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you privy to all the public and private practices of the Church pertaining to abuse? Yes or no, please. 

Bernard. No. But that's a deflection.  

[Gray]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

You ever taught in Primary?

Yes, for several years.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

You think it is appropriate for a Catholic to come in and tell a Bishop (LDS version) how the Church should be doing things?

I find the thought of a Saint ( LDS version) walking into a Catholic Church to lecture their bishop on antiabuse tactics unasked mortifying.

I wasn't thinking in terms of lecturing or telling a leader how to do things, but as good-faith sharing of suggestions. I see the bishop as a place to start. I do think the strategies and practices summarized Newsroom "How the Church Approaches Abuse" most effectively address the most common root causes of on-site lapses in youth protection and safety that have been discovered to date, but if someone is interested enough in our practices and wants to suggest screening, he can have an audience with the bishop first and see where it goes from there.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think I'll bow out of this thread. I see that my own disgust at what has happened within my church is coloring what I say here. We all want to protect children from abuse and I'm grateful for that and very grateful that Mormons are working to make sure their children are safe, too.

I took no offense to your participation in this thread. I wasn't thinking in terms of lecturing or telling a leader how to do things, but as good-faith sharing of suggestions. I see the bishop as a place to start. I do think the strategies and practices summarized Newsroom "How the Church Approaches Abuse" most effectively address the most common root causes of on-site lapses in youth protection and safety that have been discovered to date, but if you are interested enough in our practices and want to suggest screening, you are welcome to have an audience with the bishop first and see where it goes from there.

[Gray]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

Screening: “The Church goes to great lengths to screen volunteers who work with children and youth.”

Narrator: "They don't."

[Tacenda]

Another Mormonwiki leak with KM attornies.  https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/b/bc/2012-10-31-Designated_Cases_-_Active-White_Sheet_Report-Kirton_McConkie.pdf

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Another Mormonwiki leak with KM attornies.  https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/b/bc/2012-10-31-Designated_Cases_-_Active-White_Sheet_Report-Kirton_McConkie.pdf

hopefully after 6 years these cases are resolved!

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 9:28 AM, Gray said:

Narrator: "They don't."

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 1:50 PM, CV75 said:

Screening: “The Church goes to great lengths to screen volunteers who work with children and youth.”

I'm curious about what these "great lengths" could be that the church employs to screen volunteers. Other than requiring Scout leaders to take scout training and do the scout mandated background check, there is literally NOTHING the church does to screen volunteers who work with children and youth.

[changed]

On 9/15/2018 at 12:30 PM, Bernard Gui said:

See my response to BD above. If you want or need a group, be a mover to start one.

People are sadly but understandably reluctant to start attending support groups. We have invited many who just can’t muster the courage.

I tried to start a support group - I was told it was discussed, and instead of a support group, I was to "attend church meetings" and that should be good enough for me.  

Yes, it is often hard for victims to go to support groups - they are often juggling quite a lot, trying to protect other family members (cannot leave children alone etc.)  

[changed]

On 9/20/2018 at 11:20 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 1:50 PM, CV75 said:

Screening: “The Church goes to great lengths to screen volunteers who work with children and youth.”

I'm curious about what these "great lengths" could be that the church employs to screen volunteers. Other than requiring Scout leaders to take scout training and do the scout mandated background check, there is literally NOTHING the church does to screen volunteers who work with children and youth.

 

Does the church do background checks?  Are there mandatory training sessions?  .... I guess not.

[HappyJackWagon]

23 hours ago, changed said:

 

Does the church do background checks?  Are there mandatory training sessions?  .... I guess not.

Other than background checks required by BSA, I'm not aware of any background checks done by the church. I also not aware of any training, again, aside from BSA.

If the church continues to drag its heals in implementing common sense child safety policies, and/or doesn't enforce the weak policies it already has, it will be negligent in protecting children. IMO it has already been negligent BUT I also recognize that this is an evolving issue so it's hard to totally judge the church's past actions based on current culture and understanding.

[cdowis]

On 9/12/2018 at 12:08 PM, phaedrus ut said:

So the missionary department doesn't want to send a Elder home because he faces a felony for unlawful sexual acts and the Stake President would have a duty to report because of the laws of that state.  Yet the missionary has also been practicing the same behavior in the mission field. Again this Elder is touching 15 year old girls in the mission field but the "missionary department" of the church is reluctant to send him home because he faces felony charges because of his sexual behavior with a different 15 year old girl.  I can reasonably infer there is a lack of concern for the current and future victims. 

This is a summary of the cases which are referred to the First Presidency for a decision.  So your assertion that the church "does not care  about the victim" is misplaced.  We do not know the details, for example, why the missionary dept came to its recommendation, and your  "guilty until proven innocent" is the default position  against the church by its enemies.  It appears to me that you are among them.

Limited details and context, no indication of a final decision, so the antiMormons hysterically rant and rage.

Edited September 25, 2018 by cdowis

[Abulafia]

However the church has dealt with abuse currently or in the past, it has a big PR problem imho, and the PR problem is not going to get better, it will get worse. One wonders why organised religions are in steep decline. A number of factors feed into it, but this one is a significant factor imho.

This link is well worth watching. Even if you disagree.  

https://trofire.com/2018/09/23/leaked-document-proves-sexual-abuse-ignored-by-mormon-church/

 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

However the church has dealt with abuse currently or in the past, it has a big PR problem imho, and the PR problem is not going to get better, it will get worse. One wonders why organised religions are in steep decline. A number of factors feed into it, but this one is a significant factor imho.

This link is well worth watching. Even if you disagree.  

https://trofire.com/2018/09/23/leaked-document-proves-sexual-abuse-ignored-by-mormon-church/

 

 

Quote

They were accused of a variety of accusations. A lot of them centered around child s-x abuse....in all these cases, there was no effort made at all to report it to authorities. These people were just moved. These missionaries were moved and sent back home. They felt like, in the notes in this report, that this was the best situation, this was the best way to handle this

.had o edit to get it to post.  Why is it well worth watching if they get so much wrong?

This is a misrepresentation of the actual document.  First off, there is not enough info provided in the first case to know why the missionary was at home.  He could have gone home because it was the end of his two years.  "Just moved" would have been a transfer.  

Plus these were snapshots of some cases just starting or midway and did not involve the entire story so to draw conclusions from a few sentences summary from the general legal department of what was every thing the Church did as pastoral and local legal reps is highly premature.  

They recommended sending the second missionary home early knowing he would be charged with his felony offense there as the SP would be reporting him.  

And the "in all these cases..." several were obviously involving the police, iirc.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Calm

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

.had o edit to get it to post.  Why is it well worth watching if they get so much wrong?

This is a misrepresentation of the actual document.  First off, there is not enough info provided in the first case to know why the missionary was at home.  He could have gone home because it was the end of his two years.  "Just moved" would have been a transfer.  

Plus these were snapshots of some cases just starting or midway and did not involve the entire story so to draw conclusions from a few sentences summary from the general legal department of what was every thing the Church did as pastoral and local legal reps is highly premature.  

They recommended sending the second missionary home early knowing he would be charged with his felony offense there as the SP would be reporting him.  

And the "in all these cases..." several were obviously involving the police, iirc.

You may be right, you may be wrong, but that doesn't help the public image of the church.

[phaedrus ut]

17 hours ago, cdowis said:

This is a summary of the cases which are referred to the First Presidency for a decision.  So your assertion that the church "does not care  about the victim" is misplaced.  We do not know the details, for example, why the missionary dept came to its recommendation, and your  "guilty until proven innocent" is the default position  against the church by its enemies.  It appears to me that you are among them.

Limited details and context, no indication of a final decision, so the antiMormons hysterically rant and rage.

Your quotations are literally putting words in my mouth because I didn't say that.  I did say "I can reasonably infer there is a lack of concern for the current and future victims."  The missionary faces a felony at home and has abused a 15 year old in the mission field yet they are "reluctant" to send him home.  I'm comfortable to stand by that statement. 

Phaedrus

[Calm]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

The missionary faces a felony at home and has abused a 15 year old in the mission field yet they are "reluctant" to send him home

The missionary dept was not aware of the incident in the mission field when they expressed concern about sending him home, but only of the prior behaviour of kissing and sexting.

We do not know the age of the missionary when he apparently engaged in a consensual relationship with the 15 year old.  He may have been 17 or 18, he may have been older.  The felony sounds like it was the result of the 15 year old sexting with him, which may have been due to his pushing her to send him stuff, may have been a mutual exchange, may have been initiated by her.  Those details are not provided and may, if provided, give understanding why the reluctance was initially there.  We are not told what the missionary department's response was after the second confession occurred that indicated this was not a one time mistake, but a pattern of inappropriate, dysfunctional, and harmful behaviour.  They very well could have been as convinced as the legal dept that he needed to go home immediately and face the law there.

[phaedrus ut]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

The missionary dept was not aware of the incident in the mission field when they expressed concern about sending him home, but only of the prior behaviour of kissing and sexting.

How do you know the missionary dept was not aware of the incident in the mission field.  It says "The missionary recently confessed to kissing and some touching with a 15 year old girl in the mission field".  To whom would this missionary make the confession other than someone in the mission? Do missionaries regularly make confessions to the law firm acting as outside counsel to the church? 

And notice the language.  It doesn't say the missionary department "was reluctant" it says the "missionary department is reluctant to send this Elder home.." 

Phaedrus