Should Church Leaders Report Child Abuse When Confessed?

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Danzo said:

those of you who want to destroy privileges(attorney, priest, doctor, spouse, etc), will probably cause more damage than good. 

I'm not in favor of completely destroying the priest / member privileges.  As I stated in my OP, I have mixed feelings about this topic (for some of the reasons you give).

But if a leader learns of an ongoing threat to children or others, do you believe they at least have a moral obligation to warn parents (or others) who may be in immediate danger?  

Here is what the church leaders have stated:

Quote

The Church has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to abuse. This means that if we learn of abuse, we cooperate with civil authorities to report and investigate the abuse.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/how-mormons-approach-abuse

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly....but it had been only a year at the time of his confession:

 

But he had confessed (or do you mean to the police?).  Even so, the police would have opened an investigation when there are children involved and they would have most definitely shut down the daycare during the investigation (wouldn't they?).  At least children would not have been in the home where the abuse took place if it had been immediately shut down.

It would be interesting to hear from some of the parents, but I doubt that will happen.  

Oops, I thought he finished the Mission. Got the timeline wrong.

As to the rest I don’t think that would be how it would work. Let’s say the Bishop or Stake President went rogue and called the police. An investigation begins. They interview the Bishop or Stake President. They probably find out quickly it was a religious confession. A judge is unlikely to give a search warrant. No investigation is realistically possible. If they went ahead anyways or the Priesthood leader hid how he got the confession the investigation is on very shaky legal grounds. It might go through or it might not and it may or may not be admissible. Whichever way it went though the perpetrator though could very easily sue the Priesthood Leader that disclosed the information with an airtight case. I doubt criminal penalties would apply but the damages could easily ruin the leader and their family.

I am not a lawyer though and this is why the hotline exists. I am guessing the Priesthood Leader called it and was told not to disclose it for good reasons and was counseled to encourage the perpetrator to confess on their own.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nice explanation, but the Handbook in my opinion carries a tone of reporting child abuse even though the law of any particular jurisdiction might grant church leaders the privilege not to.

I think the handbook isn't supposed to merely carry "a tone" about "reporting child abuse."  Hence the Bishops' Helpline.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oops, I thought he finished the Mission. Got the timeline wrong.

As to the rest I don’t think that would be how it would work. Let’s say the Bishop or Stake President went rogue and called the police. An investigation begins. They interview the Bishop or Stake President. They probably find out quickly it was a religious confession.

There would still be a full investigation, IMO.  

And, others knew too (the parents and the mission leaders....).  I don't know, but I know the authorities take any report of child abuse very seriously.  Also, the boy most likely would have admitted the abuse when you read what his frame of mind was....he was confessing to his leaders (mission and local) and his parents (and seemed to be reaching out for help).  He ended up going to the authorities himself when it wasn't reported by others (if I'm understanding it correctly).

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the handbook isn't supposed to merely carry "a tone" about "reporting child abuse."  Hence the Bishops' Helpline.

But much of the time, it's still not reported as the leaders have claimed it will be (when it's been reported to the helpline):

Quote

The Church has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to abuse. This means that if we learn of abuse, we cooperate with civil authorities to report and investigate the abuse.

There are simply too many cases coming to light now, IMO, where the leaders could have done more.  I know it's a touch situation, but I believe the authorities should be notified it there is any type of abuse going on (especially child abuse...but any).

I think we will see more reporting as more past cases emerge (and even one is too many, IMO).

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

those of you who want to destroy privileges(attorney, priest, doctor, spouse, etc), will probably cause more damage than good.  People won't seek the help they need if they know seeking help is an automatic report to the police.  There will end up being more abuse as a result. 

These privileges are here for a reason.

 

I am okay with loopholes like therapists have in most cases have where they can disclose if it involves an imminent threat to the patient or others and it has to be pretty blatant that they are going to act on it.

One of the problems people who struggle with these temptations have is they need to be able to seek help. It used to be that pedophiles who resist the temptation and have never acted on it could not seek help without endangering themselves. These privileges help these people. It also, like in this case, gives someone who was not caught a safe sounding board to be led to confess. This will cease if the privilege vanishes.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I'm not in favor of completely destroying the priest / member privileges. 

Okay.  Are you in favor of partially destroying it, then?  What changes to the privilege are you suggesting? 

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

As I stated in my OP, I have mixed feelings about this topic (for some the reasons you give).

I understand that.  I have mixed feelings about many areas of the law, but that does not mean the law necessarily should be changed.  The law represents our society's ongoing efforts to balance the rights and responsibilities we have, individually and collectively.  That balancing act necessarily means that someone will pretty much always be dissatisfied, because the "balance" on this or that issue is not in their favor.  

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

But if a leader learns of an ongoing threat to children or others, do you believe they at least have a moral obligation to warn parents (or others) who may be in immediate danger?

Subject to the laws of the land, and having consulted with the Bishops' Helpline, yes.

There are usually ways in which a bishop can stop a threat to the welfare of a child while still adhering to the privilege.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Are you in favor of partially destroying it, then?  What changes to the privilege are you suggesting? 

Ha!  I think "destroying" is a pretty strong word and not what I want. 

I've stated what I believe here.  And it appears the leaders agree (from reading their statement that I have quoted twice now).

I believe that if leaders learn of ongoing abuse or a danger or threat to others (children or anyone), they have at least a moral obligation to report it to the authorities to investigate.  Anyone in danger should be immediately warned or removed from the presence of the abuser, IMO.  Period.

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There would still be a full investigation, IMO.  

And, others knew too (the parents and the mission leaders....).  I don't know, but I know the authorities take any report of child abuse very seriously.  Also, the boy most likely would have admitted the abuse when you read what his frame of mind was....he was confessing to his leaders (mission and local) and his parents (and seemed to be reaching out for help).  He ended up going to the authorities himself when it wasn't reported by others (if I'm understanding it correctly).

The Mission Leader would fall under privileged communication as well. It is not clear how much the parents knew.

He did go to the authorities. I believe he wisely got a lawyer first but then acted.

Also......I hate to tell you this but the authorities do not always take any report of child abuse seriously. They all claim to but the reality sometimes does not match. And if I was a law enforcement investigator I would be very wary about acting on that kind of a report where the reason for opening the investigation can be shut down by the suspect just asserting privilege. I am putting my department at all kinds of legal risks by acting on the information.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, church leaders should obey the law of the land.

Second, I think the "law of the land" should include a priest-penitent privilege.  The laws governing this issue vary from state to state, but all states have at least some  form of the privilege.  See here:

Third, the rationale for the privilege is substantively similar to that underlying several other privileges (spousal, doctor/patient, attorney/client, etc.), but in the main it has its roots in the First Amendment.  From the Wiki article above:

Fourth, much of the debate about this privilege is ad hoc, that is, people get upset about a particular incident (often inflamed into outrage and anger by axe-grinding, agenda-driven zealots (MormonLeaks, for example)), and such folks then spout off in anger and alarm.  However, this is not a topic that should be addressed in anger, in the heat of the moment, in the midst of a ginned-up moral panic (again, see MormonLeaks for examples).  This is a complex and important topic, and one that has been evaluated and addressed extensively in our legal system.

In short, the priest-penitent privilege is not one we should abandon simply because the execrable MormonLeaks is trying to foment outrage and hatred against a minority religion for its entirely proper observance of this privilege.

Yes.  Ryan McKnight is trying to gin up hostility against the Church.  Again.  Quelle surprise!

I invite you to resist the impulse that Ryan McKnight is hoping you will rely on (that impulse having as its primary attributes anger, outrage, and impatience).

One of the reasons the privilege exists in Judeo-Christian countries such as the U.S. is that penitents are encouraged to confess their sins to clergy.

One of the reasons the confessional exists (the primary reason, in fact) is to encourage repentance.  That usually involves the clergy encouraging the penitent to "make things right."

Without the privilege, people will stop confessing their misconduct to clergy, and hence will be deprived of a voice encouraging them to "make things right."

Without the privilege, the religious freedom we now enjoy will be substantially curtailed.  

Without the privilege, the government would eventually be able to turn the clergy into weapons of the state.  And if this privilege falls, then the others may become imperiled.  Do you really want to give the government the power to use the force of law to coerce your priest into divulging what you've said in confidence?  What about the government being able to coerce your doctor?  Your psychiatrist?  Your lawyer?  Your spouse?

I agree.

I think the "cost" would be much higher if we abolish the privilege. 

Think about how often clergy succeed in encouraging penitents to turn themselves in, to stop the abuse, etc.

Think about how many penitents will stop confessing their misconduct to clergy, and hence will be left without the encouraging voice of the clergy, and hence will be left to continue to engage in the misconduct.

Think about how much power the government has already to intrude into your life.  Do you really want to abolish one of the few checks left on that intrusive power?

Even Ryan McKnight (!), the original source of this story, admits that "{b}ased on the current law in Utah, and what is currently known about this case, the Mormon Church did not violate the law."

That didn't stop him from trying to use this story to foment anger and hatred against the Church, of course.  If you have any question about that, I invite you to read the "Comments" sections of the websites carrying this story.

A sampling:

I submit that this is precisely the sort of visceral, hate-filled response that Ryan McKnight was hoping to get.

-Smac

Put children first, all the stuff you said, goes away after that.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I am interested in knowing the answer to that. (what "construes an immediate threat")?

I'm not sure that such an exception exists when it comes to clergy in Utah.

For physical threats, here is how it works with respect to therapists (emphasis added):

78B-3-502. Limitation of therapist's duty to warn. 
(1)    A therapist has no duty to warn or take precautions to provide protection from any violent behavior of his client or patient, except when that client or patient communicated to the therapist an actual threat of physical violence against a clearly identified or reasonably identifiable victim. That duty shall be discharged if the therapist makes reasonable efforts to communicate the threat to the victim, and notifies a law enforcement officer or agency of the threat.
 

If you are interested in reading the Utah law regarding reporting requirements for child abuse, you can do so here: link.

As you can see, clergy are exempt from the reporting requirement when they learn about the abuse only from the confessor. According to section (3)(a), "[w]hen a member of the clergy receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the member of the clergy is required to report that information even though the member of the clergy may have also received information about abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator."

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Amulek
formatting

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But much of the time, it's still not reported as the leaders have claimed it will be (when it's been reported to the helpline):

There are simply too many cases coming to light now, IMO, where the leaders could have done more.  I know it's a touch situation, but I believe the authorities should be notified it there is any type of abuse going on (especially child abuse...but any).

I think we will see more reporting as more past cases emerge (and even one is too many, IMO).

Then the law should be changed. Putting Bishops and Stake Presidents in legal jeopardy by encouraging them to violate clergy privilege is not the answer.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then the law should be changed. Putting Bishops and Stake Presidents in legal jeopardy by encouraging them to violate clergy privilege is not the answer.

It sounds like they still have ways to report it and not be in violation of the law (if I'm understanding correctly).

But if not, I agree that the laws should be changed.  I also believe the leaders have a moral obligation to do the right thing and do whatever is necessary to protect the victim and any potential victims.  I would always put the feelings and harm of the abused over any embarrassment or hurt feelings or harm brought to someone who is abusing another.  I cannot actually think of an instance where I'd take exception to that, can you?

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But much of the time, it's still not reported as the leaders have claimed it will be (when it's been reported to the helpline):

I'm sorry, I can't go by your say-so here.  What incidents are you referencing here?  What documentation do you have to substantiate such incidents?

Are you just passing along online gossip and hearsay?  Unsubstantiated anecdotes?  If not, then let's see what you have.  But if you are, then I think your claim here is way overbroad and unsubstantiated.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There are simply too many cases coming to light now, IMO, where the leaders could have done more. 

Again, I don't know what you are talking about here.  What are these "cases?"  What is the "more" that "the leaders could have done?"

And how do you account for the instances in which local leaders succeed in stopping or averting abuse?  

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know it's a touch situation, but I believe the authorities should be notified it there is any type of abuse going on (especially child abuse...but any).

How do you propose the privilege would be preserved under such a proposal?  It sounds like you want to obliterate the privilege altogether.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think we will see more reporting as more past cases emerge

Determining what we should do now based on what was not done ten or twenty years ago does not seem reasonable.

The Church has worked hard to put in place training and resources to help bishops properly handle allegations of abuse.  What evidence/data do you have to substantiate the idea that such training and resources are insufficient or ineffective?

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

(and even one is too many, IMO).

"Even one victim is too many" is not a message that I can get behind.  Not because I disagree with it (I fully embrace the sentiment), but because it is so plainly impractical.  As long as we live in a sinful world, we will have "victims."  Demands predicated on a "even one victim is too many" sentiment would potentially save a victim over here, but would very likely perpetuate victimization of many others over there. 

Moreover, by this logic, we need to stop driving cars.  "One [accident] victim is too many," after all.  

We also need to stop going to hospitals.  "One [hospital infection] victim is too many."  

We also can't go to doctors anymore.  "One [medical malpractice] victim is too many."  

And the schools.  Gotta shut them down, too.  "One [bullying] victim is toomany."  

And alcohol.  That's out.  "One [intoxicated violence] victim is too many."  

And so on.  Ad infinitum.

Life is a series of calculated risk calculations.  Having having previously worked as a bishop to reduce those risks, and address the aftermath of those risks materializing into actual harn and injury, I feel comfortable in stating that bishops are a tremendous resource for helping victims of abuse.  Taking that resource away (such as by obliterating the priest/penitent privilege) would, in my view, be very harmful to a lot of victims who would have otherwise been able to benefit from the goodness and wisdom and resources and training and experience of bishops.  

See, for example, this story:

An Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.

...

The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

"The alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop."  That happens.  A lot.  All the time, in fact.  But people who want to abolish the privilege (and also people like Sam Young) are demanding that this resource be taken away.  Have these folks considered the ramifications of such demands being fulfilled?  Have they considered how many times abuse of a child will continue unabated because bishops were eliminated as a resource for helping stop or avert abuse or other forms of misconduct?

Bishops are not perfect, but in my view they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse, in helping members cope with various other problems and questions and anxieties, and generally being someone that can be there to offer support and (some) guidance and (lots of) resources.  

Eliminating the privilege inherent to priest/penitent communications would, in my view, be quite harmful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ha!  I think "destroying" is a pretty strong word and not what I want. 

I've stated what I believe here.  And it appears the leaders agree (from reading their statement that I have quoted twice now).

I believe that if leaders learn of ongoing abuse or a danger or threat to others (children or anyone), they have at least a moral obligation to report it to the authorities to investigate.  Anyone in danger should be immediately warned or removed from the presence of the abuser, IMO.  Period.

I think that can happen without abolishing the privilege.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm sorry, I can't go by your say-so here.

It's not my "say-so"....have you not been paying attention to the numerous abuse stories that have surfaced (in the news) regarding this (past and currently)?  It's an ongoing part of many stories that the leaders knew, but did nothing to protect the victims or report the abuse.  Do you believe they are all incorrect or inaccurate?

I'll try to post as many as I can find, if you want me to go searching.

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Here's this statement too:

Quote

 

Child protection policy in the LDS Church:

The LDS Church states that abusive behavior, whether physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional, is a sin and is condemned unreservedly by the church.[48] The church teaches that victims of abuse should report it to their bishop, and should be assured that they are not to blame for the abuse. Abuse of any form should be reported not only by the bishop but also by the victim to local law enforcement.[48]

 

That's stated pretty clearly.  

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not in favor of completely destroying the priest / member privileges.  As I stated in my OP, I have mixed feelings about this topic (for some of the reasons you give).

But if a leader learns of an ongoing threat to children or others, do you believe they at least have a moral obligation to warn parents (or others) who may be in immediate danger?  

Here is what the church leaders have stated:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/how-mormons-approach-abuse

I think the church made a mistake saying that. Saying they have zero-tolerance for abuse means what exactly? Automatic excommunication for any form of abuse......even an isolated verbal incident? Zero-tolerance policies are generally stupid. They came in vogue for schools and have been used for huge amounts of injustice against students and teachers. Most situations are nuanced and nor recognizing that leads to stupidity.

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Put children first, all the stuff you said, goes away after that.

No, it does not. Tearing down all the protections people have under the law at the hint that a child is in danger will in the long run harm all of us including children. What do we give up next? The presumption of innocence if it is possible a child was harmed by the defendant? If a child shows up at a hospital with a bruise do we drag the kids away from their parents because it is possible there was abuse without looking into it? Do we ban cars because children have died from being left in them?

If children’s physical safety comes first, full stop, over every other consideration it would be a horrible dystopian world. I am reminded of 1984 where the children knew that a report against their parents would make their parents disappear. Do we want that?

Of course reasonable precautions should be implemented and abuse investigated but the histrionics about children need to stop.

The histrionics about the danger to our children are what led to ridiculously high mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for drug possession, helicopter parenting, the satanic child sacrifice mania, and morons protesting everything from Dungeons & Dragons to Harry Potter as a threat to “THE CHILDREN!!!”

Great evils came out of that hysteria in my childhood. Can we please stop pretending it is some kind of trump card that overrides everything? It does not and should not.

[webbles]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  Ok.  He was 17 years old when he was doing this to other small children.

You do know that's child abuse, don't you?

I think you have the timeline wrong.

When he was 11-12, he first encountered p*rn on a Kindle device given to him by his parents.

When he was 14-15, he discovered a website that allowed him to view child p*rn.  Unfortunately, it required him to upload new child p*rn for him to get access.  So he recorded 3 videos of some of the day care kids.  He didn't care about the videos that he made.  He only cared about getting access to the other child p*rn.

When he was 15-16, he made 3-4 more videos for more child p*rn.

He continued to access the site until he was 17 at which point he transitioned to adult p*rn.

So, he was not doing this to other small children when he was 17.  He was most likely not even viewing p*rn of small children since he didn't care about the videos of the small children that he made.  He was just trying to get access to p*rn that fit his current age group.  Once he was 17, he now wanted adult p*rn as he was now an adult.

As for this being child abuse, yes I know it is child abuse.  He is guilty of creating child p*rn and should be punished for it.  I'm just trying to point out how he wasn't an immediate danger to young children after he was 17.  He would probably be more dangerous to adult women than to young children.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's not my "say-so"....

Yes, it is.  You haven't posted any studies or empirical data.  Just your "say-so."

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

have you not been paying attention to the numerous abuse stories that have surfaced (in the news) regarding this (past and currently)? 

I've been paying a lot of attention to such things.  But "abuse stories that have surfaced (in the news)" are, collectively, essentially anecdotal.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe they are all incorrect or inaccurate?

I believe they are mostly unvetted and unsubstantiated.

I also believe that very few of these stories involve an element of "the abuse happened/continued because the bishop followed the already-in-place guidelines, training, and helpline instructions from the Church and its legal counsel."

If you want to abolish or substantially alter the status quo, I think it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate how and whether we could improve on the status quo.  As it is, and with respect, I think you are caught up in a sort of "moral panic."

We all want to protect children from harm.  Surey we can agree on that.  But the particulars of how we do that need to be reasoned and evaluated.  Reacting to inflammatory news headlines is not the best way to go.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'll try to post as many as I can find, if you want me to go searching.

If you like.  I think you'll have a hard time finding substantiated stories along the lines of "the abuse happened/continued because the bishop followed the already-in-place guidelines, training, and helpline instructions from the Church and its legal counsel."

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's this statement too:

That's stated pretty clearly.  

It is also pretty clear that that statement has no factor in this case.  We are talking about the perpetrator, not the victim.  If the victim had come to the Bishop, then it should be reported to the police because there is no clergy privilege.  You only have clergy privilege if you are the perpetrator.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It sounds like they still have ways to report it and not be in violation of the law (if I'm understanding correctly).

But if not, I agree that the laws should be changed.  I also believe the leaders have a moral obligation to do the right thing and do whatever is necessary to protect the victim and any potential victims.  I would always put the feelings and harm of the abused over any embarrassment or hurt feelings or harm brought to someone who is abusing another.  I cannot actually think of an instance where I'd take exception to that, can you?

I am not convinced there is a way to report it without danger to the leader. The articles hint at that but consider the source. They are focusing on how it “might not be a crime”. No one asks if reporting it would make the Church or the individual leader liable under the law. Read the comments if you want to see what kind of audience the “friendly atheist” is playing to.

 

That being said with what I know the sentence seems light.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Put children first, all the stuff you said, goes away after that.

I think this is short-sighted and facile.

It's also inaccurate.  I certainly do "put children first."  I can do that and advocate for the priest/penitent privilege.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ha!  I think "destroying" is a pretty strong word and not what I want. 

Okay.  That's good to know.

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've stated what I believe here.  And it appears the leaders agree (from reading their statement that I have quoted twice now).

I believe that if leaders learn of ongoing abuse or a danger or threat to others (children or anyone), they have at least a moral obligation to report it to the authorities to investigate. 

Report it to the police even if the leader learns it from the perpetrator?  In a priest/penitent communication?

So it sounds like you do wnat to "destroy" the privilege after all.

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Anyone in danger should be immediately warned or removed from the presence of the abuser, IMO.  Period.

Can that happen without destroying the privilege?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you like.  I think you'll have a hard time finding substantiated stories along the lines of "the abuse happened/continued because the bishop followed the already-in-place guidelines, training, and helpline instructions from the Church and its legal counsel."

Who are you quoting there?  Please remove the quotation marks unless you can provide a post where I actually stated that.

I have simply stated that abuse cases have not always been reported to the authorities and I believe they should be.  Even calling the helpline does not mean the leaders will always report the abuse. 

And yet they have stated:

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Child protection policy in the LDS Church:

The LDS Church states that abusive behavior, whether physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional, is a sin and is condemned unreservedly by the church.[48] The church teaches that victims of abuse should report it to their bishop, and should be assured that they are not to blame for the abuse. Abuse of any form should be reported not only by the bishop but also by the victim to local law enforcement.[48]

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson