Mormon Leaks document on handling Child Abuse

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, lostindc said:

What do you expect the Church to do for each of these situations listed in the spreadsheet?

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

[Calm]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Clearly this spreadsheet is about KM's investigations and legal recommendations, but the ecclesiastical response seems to be wrapped up in it as well, as most of the cases mention how things were handled by church leaders. Interesting that in one case the missionary department was reluctant to send a missionary home, where he would face prosecution, but KM says he should be sent home. Wouldn't he be going home, eventually, anyway? Would a stake president be required to report the abuse at that time?

It sounds like it was a not quite thought through decision, but a quick response for that very reason.  Perhaps it had been the result of a phone call to the missionary department alerting them to the first confession of sexting and the response was along the lines of " I wish we didn't have to send him home as where he is from that's a felony".  I highly doubt that would have been the response if the additional confession of recent physical sexual contact with a minor/15 year old had also been know at the time (they are treated separately in the summary, so I read it as two different confessions...possibly one first to his MP, the second a followup interview yielded the second confession).

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

What's depressing is the case of the missionary who sexually abused an 8-year-old.

Wasn't it just an accusation or was it stated as a fact, can't remember?

 

[Storm Rider]

55 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How do you know the church's position is different? You don't know if the church followed KM's recommendation. You don't know if the church has a policy of non-reporting if reporting could make the church look bad. You don't know how the church reaches out to abuse victims. You don't know what happens to missionaries accused of abuse. Are they sent home, transferred to another mission, left on their mission and transferred to a new area? Are their records annotated so that they never serve with children or youth? Does the church settle with abuse victims and require non-disclosure as a matter of course? How much do they spend on settlements? How many cases of abuse does the church settle? Do they avoid reporting to law enforcement unless absolutely, legally required? If so, why? At least I'm assuming you don't know these things because I don't, and I've never seen it addressed.

More than anything, the Mormon Leak is showing how little we know about how abuse is treated institutionally.  It shows that there may be a problem. It illustrates a need for greater information. If the church wants to maintain the trust of its members it should be transparent about how it handles these kinds of cases. As contributors in time, money, and service I believe members of the church deserve to know how the institutional church responds to accusations of abuse. Are they being responsible in their treatment of abuse victims and also the perpetrators? You don't know, and I don't know. Only those in positions of authority for the institutional church know, and they have the ability to share that information, and unless they feel like they and the church are beyond the questioning of mere mortals, they should be transparent around this issue.

It is not about what I think - you made a statement without any support whatsoever. These types of situations demand accuracy and support for our statements. For you to go on a tirade about me not knowing the Church's position does not empower your false statement - the fact is the law firm's position is all we know. Do you know different?  If not, stop it. Be accurate.  It is not a big deal to be accurate and I don't understand your resistance. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

It sounds like it was a not quite thought through decision, but a quick response for that very reason.  Perhaps it had been the result of a phone call to the missionary department alerting them to the first confession of sexting and the response was along the lines of " I wish we didn't have to send him home as where he is from that's a felony".  I highly doubt that would have been the response if the additional confession of recent physical sexual contact with a minor/15 year old had also been know at the time (they are treated separately in the summary, so I read it as two different confessions...possibly one first to his MP, the second a followup interview yielded the second confession).

Wasn't it just an accusation or was it stated as a fact, can't remember?

It says it was an accusation, but then it talks about the church working with the victim, so mixed messages, IMO. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

If the conduct involved two minors why would be facing felony charges when returning home?

Some places the law it does not matter if both are minors, it is still statutory rape, so perhaps it is the same for this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

Quote

Often, teenage couples engage in sexual conduct as part of an intimate relationship. This may occur before either participant has reached the age of consent, or after one has but the other has not. In the latter case, in most jurisdictions, the person who has reached the age of consent is guilty of statutory rape. In some jurisdictions (such as California and Michigan), if two minors have sex with each other, they are both guilty of engaging in unlawful sex with the other person.[15][16][17] The act itself is prima facie evidence of guilt when one participant is incapable of legally consenting.

4 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Yes the law firm holds the opinion the missionary needs to return home but it's the actual church that is reluctant to do so.  Should Kirton McConkie really need to be the moral voice is such matters? 

It is the missionary department---which stands in the place of parents for missionaries in many people's views from what I have heard over the years and I assume many who work there feel that way so that gut reaction doesn't surprise me---that is reluctant, there are other Church leaders that might not be so reluctant.  The missionary department is also not the ones making the decision apparently given the summary is asking for direction from another party.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, 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

I agree. Individuals are responsible for their own abusive behavior.

The church is responsible for its role in a) not adequately providing reasonable protection against abuse via policies, procedures, teachings, church cultural expectations etc. or b) not adequately addressing abuse once it has occurred. This could take the form of covering up the abuse out of fear of bad PR for the church, not reporting abuse to law enforcement in an attempt to protect the abuser, attempting to silence abuse victims or generally attempting to cover up abuse in any way.

The church is responsible for its own actions before and after abuse occurs. We have no way of knowing if the church is responsible, but it is usually assumed that they are doing the right thing. Without transparency we can't know for sure. I think most catholics assumed the church did the right thing until it was proven they don't.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Of course, I am. I think your position is laughable and does not pertain or reflect the feelings of the vast majority of the members of the Church. I know that conflicts with your personal narrative of the Church and its members, but that is more a personal problem - as in your personal problem - than reality. 

When humans adopt an agenda it is humorous how far they will go to ignore all conflicting data. This goes for those of religious faith and most definitely for those with conflicting religious affiliations/faiths, as well as anyone else with an agenda. 

Since this has been my experience, it is at the very least representative of one person (me).  Also, since you're saying there is conflicting data, I would like to see your "data".  If by "data" you just mean your opinion, then you essentially have your opinion and personal observations against my opinion and observations. 

There are many different experiences out there in Mormonism, I'm not trying to say there aren't or that my experience is representative of everyone.  Are you trying to say that my experience and observations aren't valid, because that is what your "agenda" sounds like to me.  

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is not about what I think - you made a statement without any support whatsoever. These types of situations demand accuracy and support for our statements. For you to go on a tirade about me not knowing the Church's position does not empower your false statement - the fact is the law firm's position is all we know. Do you know different?  If not, stop it. Be accurate.  It is not a big deal to be accurate and I don't understand your resistance. 

What statement are you referring to? What was my statement that needs additional support?

Tirade? Wow. Did you know the answer to any of the questions I asked? As I stated in my "tirade" I don't know answers to any of those questions, so I don't know how you can claim the church's position is "different" when there is no information to illustrate what their position is.

You must not be understanding me at all because my position is that we don't know enough, and that we should know more. I gave examples of the types of questions I think would be reasonable for us to know the answers to. But somehow you thought that was a tirade. I'm not sure what you want me to stop. Have you confused me with someone else? Please show me how I have been inaccurate in my statements and I will do my best to correct any inaccuracies.

[Gray]

Some comments from an attorney who has litigated against the church on behalf of a number of victims:

 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I wonder how much has changed in 6 years. I don't think we can say one way or the other. 

I agree, but I am guessing that time generally brings improvements in this area as people learn from research and experience what works and what doesn't.

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Without transparency we can't know for sure

What would this transparency look like?

I think this question has been asked before on this or another thread, but I'm genuinely interested in the answer.

Whenever it is alleged that a member of the church has committed some sort of abuse would this be published?  Would the churches response be published?   And if I knew any of this how would it help me?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

But we could just as easily say that "Given that both the mission leaders who convened a disciplinary council and the home stake president both declined to take adverse action against the elder, it's reasonable to assume that the alleged abuse did not happen."

The document doesn't give us enough to go on.

The statute of limitations could have run.  The purported victim may have moved or declined to cooperate.  There could be lots of reasons.

In the end, however, the Church complies with reporting statutes.

7 instances in 2 months would work out to about 3.5 per month, or about 42 per year.  Out of a missionary force of 59,000.  That works out to 0.071%.

.07% = "yikes?"

-Smac

Wasn't 7 the entire list?  If so, that included a Stake President and two other nonmissionary involved incident, so they appear to be tracking anyone operating as a representative of the Church, including nonmember Scout leaders.

That makes for 4 incidents, not 7, for the missionary force. (Am catching up so ignore if already mentioned)

What are the usual statue of limitations on child p-rn?

Edited September 12, 2018 by Calm

[TOmNossor]

 

Hello,

As one who has no more exposure to this issue than the documents in question and some of the post on this thread, put me down as undecided.  I do have faith that President Nelson is God’s prophet on earth, but that does not mean I find it impossible that he or someone who is a leader in God’s church made mistakes and perhaps horrible mistakes concerning these things.

Likewise, I have faith that many of those who celebrate unrighteously IMO every misstep made by the church are willing to make mountains out of molehills and sometimes lie or grossly misrepresent the truth.  But that does not mean that every accusation is false and every problem unearthed should be squashed.

I have thought a great deal about Sam Young and I do not believe it best that youth discussion of sexual mores ENDS.  Sam Young is no hero IMO largely because his quest today was 6^th on his list of reasons to not sustain church leaders just a year ago and I believe it is merely the cause that propelled him to fame not the beginning or end of his disagreement with the church he once embraced.  That being said, I am happy that some actions have been taken by the church concerning bishop interviews and I think it possible others will happen as we continue to discover the challenges of the world in the Church.

Concerning sexual sin in general, especially sexual sin involving folks over 18 and folks under 18, my non-inspired view is …

1. Repentance is possible, but should be separate and not related to earthly consequences.

2. Ecclesiastical discernment is possible, but should be associated with continued membership NOT continued responsibility for children and NOT for avoidance of civil investigation.  Guidelines should exist that are always followed unless a lawyer (non-inspired) and a leader (hopefully inspired) agree that a certain case is EXTRAORDINARY and some different outcome should be pursued (these instances should be rare or non-existent depending upon the guidelines that are created).

 

I believe this is the LAST dispensation ONLY because Sam Young and other folks (more noble folks in some cases as I question Sam Young’s motivation as I mentioned above), do not believe that church leaders, even those who receive revelation from God are different type of men than we all are.  Previous dispensations could not continue not because the pool of men who could lead righteously was far more shallow than it is in the last dispensation.  Instead the whole of humanity (the branches) support God’s leaders and the root neither overcomes the branches nor do the branches whither completely.  This is a balance that comes with the God guided belief in the equality of mankind which acts to check even inspired leaders.  Most of this comes from my reading of Val Larsen’s A Mormon Theodicy: Jacob and the Problem of Evil.

 

Anyway, I will wait to see where the chips fall.  I have faith that any evil uncovered will not be faith destroying, but it IMO is too early to suggest there will be little or no evil uncovered.

Charity, TOm

Edited September 12, 2018 by TOmNossor

[Calm]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Yikes, as in that's 42 reported cases a year, knowing that the vast majority of these cases are never reported at all. I'm not suggesting the church or its missionaries have a higher rate of abuse than the rest of society, but that seems to be how you are interpreting it. 

It is not just missionaries, but all Church reps imo (4 cases of missionaries, 1 SP accused through his teaching job, 1nonmember BSA leader, and one Indian Placement case).

I calculated comparable stats for worldwide membership with the US and came up with 300 victims per week (post in other thread with details).  Assuming 30% reporting (that was for the US so likely high for worldwide) that would be 100 victims per week.  7 cases involving those operating as possible legal reps does not sound higher than general population.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

It does? [feeds idea] Getting reports to the appropriate parties?  Getting lawyers involved?  Timely assessments and preliminary recommendations?  If anything, this document feeds the idea that the Church is paying close attention to allegations of abuse and responding to them.

 

I don't think most people will look that closely at it or phrase descriptions with sufficient accuracy (for example, even in this thread many are phrasing it as if only discussing missionaries when they are only half of the cases), but like the Bishop transcript just repeat others' conclusions, thus I agree it will feed impressions, not because of what it actually says, but what it will come to represent.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Calm

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Driving on I-15 the other day I saw a traffic notice that said something like "129 deaths on Utah roads this summer."

Yes, that strikes me as sad.  Any non-zero number strikes me as said.  But "yikes" seemed to suggest something unexpected or disproportionate.

Thanks,

-Smac

You know, Spencer, this is but one in a long line of posts in which you cite the available statistics as some sort of support for the notion that there's nothing left to be done on the issue of abuse.  I suspect your tune would be VERY different if your child was included in the % that had been subjected to abuse.  I don't think it serves you well, or your argument, at all to keep doing this.  In my opinion, the Church (or any organization) ought to be diligent about considering any changes likely to keep driving the rate of sexual abuse within its area(s) of responsibility toward zero.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, MorningStar said:

Thanks, I'm not talking about punishing, but well-meaning people trying to save a person from legal consequences. A friend had a young man in her ward babysit and he ended up raping her daughters. She had church members asking her not to press charges and seemed to think he would never do it again. They thought she was being unChristlike by having him arrested. The boy had his whole life ahead of him. That's the kind of "tough" I'm talking about. 

Yes, and otherwise good members go into circle the wagons and protection mode when it is their son. People who would be all for harsh legal and criminal penalties otherwise who face the horror of their son getting 15+ in prison and lifetime probation, lifelong sex offender status, etc. 

I can empathize with the temptation loved ones to keep all of the criminal and legal consequences at bay, but I strongly feel that paying the full criminal and legal price and full cooperation with the authorities is the only chance they have at forgiveness through the atonement. After all you can do, etc. And, people are usually delusional (even otherwise sharp, good people) in thinking it will never happen again when it is their own son. When people do things like this, they are going to do it again. They need to face the consequences and society and the Church needs to be protected from them (by locking them away and going through the rehabilitation programs associated with that, followed by the lifelong monitoring).

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

One disagreement I have (a personal one) with how most bishops and the institutional church usually deals with confessions and "comings to light" of this nature is, I believe that facing the social and legal consequences is a major part of the repentance process. That is, I think someone trying to repent of something like this should be required to turn himself in and cooperate with the investigation. If unwilling, then they aren't repentant, and that would be another factor in the disciplinary council. Yes, that would be terrifying to face (15+ years in prison, lifetime sex offender status, etc.), but are you willing to show godly sorrow and do everything you can to provide restitution (as much as lies in your power), or not? 

While no one can force anyone to turn themselves in, they can say, "You aren't willing to do everything to repair the damage you caused, and you aren't really repentant. That would seem to indicate excommunication, then, but more importantly, your state before God is very bad. You need to do what is right!" 

The damage to victims and victim families is incalculable. All perpetrators can do is not hold back or avail themselves of legal protections (i.e., turn themselves in and cooperate fully). For victim families I know, this would have done so much for them. 

I don't understand why this isn't an ecclesiasitical counseling approach. Are we trying to save the perpetrators' souls, or not? Because not using our influence with them to get them to do "all that they can do" isn't helping their soul, or their full repentance. And it isn't helping the victim families. 

This might lead to less confessions though and less likely therefore to get help.  I remember reading this fear of condemnation is a problem with getting those who have not committed crimes, but just have inclinations to go to counseling because they see responses by others as locked in.  If it prevents those who haven't committed crimes from reporting their feelings, I see it as even stronger avoidance fear for those who have.  Setting it up so there is a locked in requirement would strengthen avoidance big time.

So I am caught between the two as I agree with you part of the repentance process is accepting the social and legal consequences of one's behavior.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Calm

[rongo]

Just now, Calm said:

This might lead to less confessions though and less likely therefore to get help.  I remember reading this fear of condemnation is a problem with getting those who have not committed crimes, but just have inclinations to go to counseling because they see responses by others as locked in.  If it prevents those who haven't committed crimes from reporting their feelings, I see it as even stronger avoidance fear for those who have.

So I am caught between the two as I agree with you part of the repentance process is accepting the social and legal consequences of one's behavior.

While I've said I've thought about the possibility of breaking the priest / penitent confidentiality (thankfully, the only member under my stewardship who did anything like this turned waived his rights and gave a full taped confession to police on his own), I was thinking more of leaders telling people that this is required for their repentance, or they aren't really repenting and their sin remains.While this could result in a drop in confessions, what good are confessions, really, if they aren't really fully repenting (which includes restitution to the extent possible)? 

I've never seen shielding perpetrators from temporal and spiritual consequences as helping their eternal soul or eternal progression. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What would this transparency look like?

I think this question has been asked before on this or another thread, but I'm genuinely interested in the answer.

Whenever it is alleged that a member of the church has committed some sort of abuse would this be published?  Would the churches response be published?   And if I knew any of this how would it help me?

Are you asking about what information should be shared or what the system for transparency should look like? I've got some ideas but am very open to a discussion about how transparency could be implemented. The problem is, we can't really seem to agree on this board that transparency is even a worthwhile goal. Some people, like me believe the church will be stronger with transparency and that members have the right to know certain things, whereas others claim membership has no right to know and that it borders on heresy to claim that leadership should be accountable to church membership. When we can't even clear that hurdle, it's hard to get into specifics, so I'll be vague here. I don't have some master plan.

I've raised a number of issues on this thread that I think church members should know about or at least have access to. Right now we are all speculating about what the church does or doesn't do because no one knows. Worse, we have no way of finding out. There's no place we can go to get answers about historical data regarding abuse rates, perpetrators, what's been done to protect members from known perpetrators, how victims have been helped etc. I don't know if it would be useful for the church to publish details (names redacted) for every occurrence but just like a financial audit, it would be important to know what their policies and procedures are for dealing with abusers and their victims. Members could then determine for themselves if they feel those policies are responsible. If the policies are not deemed adequate for protection and/or post-abuse ministering and reporting, then members should have an outlet to discuss those policies with church leaders. Obviously the church wouldn't be able to respond to every member concern but it would bring a level of accountability to the institution which would encourage good policies and procedures and a reporting mechanism for how those policies and procedures are followed.

Again, the problems are, 1) we don't know what policies and procedures are in place at the highest levels of the church for dealing with abuse, 2) we don't know how the policies (whatever they are) are followed 3) there is no mechanism to learn about the policies and procedures nor is there a way to address them with anyone in authority. In short, we don't know what should be done, what is actually being done, nor do we have the ability to find out. The church is completely unaccountable to its members. Some people think that is the way it should be. Others find the lack of transparency and accountability to be dangerous and even immoral.

We don't know how big the issue is and we have no way of finding out unless there are whistleblowers and leaks. So before we can get into specifics about transparency it seems to me the structural roadblocks need to be removed so that transparency is possible and deemed a worthy goal.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It doesn’t suggest that to me. 

It does for me, .I interpreted it the same way.  It helps for you to clarify that is not what you meant.

Shock indicates the person is surprised, imo.  I am not surprised by the number of reports KM was dealing with.  My expectation is actually it would be typically higher based on abuse/victim reporting rates for the general population.  It is heartbreaking, but not unexpected for me.

Quote

yikes...

1. expressing shock and alarm, often for humorous effect.

   "I had a dip in the 40-degree pool (yikes!)"

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, lostindc said:

Please stop, you’re turning this into a game.  It’s really not funny and says a lot about you.  

 

I disagree, he is pushing for precision rather than vague demands.  Without precision, it is impossible to judge whether or not a request for information is appropriate.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you asking about what information should be shared or what the system for transparency should look like? I've got some ideas but am very open to a discussion about how transparency could be implemented. The problem is, we can't really seem to agree on this board that transparency is even a worthwhile goal. Some people, like me believe the church will be stronger with transparency and that members have the right to know certain things, whereas others claim membership has no right to know and that it borders on heresy to claim that leadership should be accountable to church membership. When we can't even clear that hurdle, it's hard to get into specifics, so I'll be vague here. I don't have some master plan.

I've raised a number of issues on this thread that I think church members should know about or at least have access to. Right now we are all speculating about what the church does or doesn't do because no one knows. Worse, we have no way of finding out. There's no place we can go to get answers about historical data regarding abuse rates, perpetrators, what's been done to protect members from known perpetrators, how victims have been helped etc. I don't know if it would be useful for the church to publish details (names redacted) for every occurrence but just like a financial audit, it would be important to know what their policies and procedures are for dealing with abusers and their victims. Members could then determine for themselves if they feel those policies are responsible. If the policies are not deemed adequate for protection and/or post-abuse ministering and reporting, then members should have an outlet to discuss those policies with church leaders. Obviously the church wouldn't be able to respond to every member concern but it would bring a level of accountability to the institution which would encourage good policies and procedures and a reporting mechanism for how those policies and procedures are followed.

Again, the problems are, 1) we don't know what policies and procedures are in place at the highest levels of the church for dealing with abuse, 2) we don't know how the policies (whatever they are) are followed 3) there is no mechanism to learn about the policies and procedures nor is there a way to address them with anyone in authority. In short, we don't know what should be done, what is actually being done, nor do we have the ability to find out. The church is completely unaccountable to its members. Some people think that is the way it should be. Others find the lack of transparency and accountability to be dangerous and even immoral.

We don't know how big the issue is and we have no way of finding out unless there are whistleblowers and leaks. So before we can get into specifics about transparency it seems to me the structural roadblocks need to be removed so that transparency is possible and deemed a worthy goal.

So do we think that the general membership of the church, through the mechanisms that you've described above, would be better at handling the problems associated with abuse than church leaders are?  That's one thing that I seem to be getting out of what you've written.

"The church is completely unaccountable to its members."

Is the church accountable to the members of the church?  Or is it accountable to Christ who is it's head?

I would also say that what the church is is the collective actions of it's members, whether those members are just regular guys or leaders or whatever. 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, it's about accountability. You can provide information for accountability that does not involve putting out any information about individuals. Frankly, the idea that transparency is all or nothing is ridiculous and clearly an attempt to shut down discussion.

So what specific statistics would you like to see?

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You know, Spencer, this is but one in a long line of posts in which you cite the available statistics as some sort of support for the notion that there's nothing left to be done on the issue of abuse. 

Except I have neither said nor done anything of the kind.

32 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I suspect your tune would be VERY different if your child was included in the % that had been subjected to abuse. 

Not really.  I would still be asking for something more meaningful and substantive than endless and vague demands for "more transparency" and "some accountability."

32 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't think it serves you well, or your argument, at all to keep doing this.  In my opinion, the Church (or any organization) ought to be diligent about considering any changes likely to keep driving the rate of sexual abuse within its area(s) of responsibility toward zero.

I am fine with that idea in the abstract.  But what substantive ideas have been presented here?  Any framework?  And specific proposals?  Any limiting principles?

Nope.

Thanks,

-Smac