SBC sex abuse report

[Amulek]

19 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

But how does a person report the abuse by a leader who is part of the chain of command? Usually members are counselled to go to their local leaders.

I guess this is part of what I don't understand about your suggested need for an ombudsman. When it comes to organizational hierarchy, the LDS church is almost militaristic.

If the abuse originated from someone in the chain of command then you simply report the abuse to that person's superior. Why would you need a special person just to let you know who that is?

 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well if the Church knows a person is a sexual offender their record is annotated.  The Church needs to start to do background checks for leadership positions like this.

We don't know if the Bishop didn't know when extending the calling, perhaps there were other circumstances like perhaps this was a small branch. I'm not sure it was his calling that caused this, it was this non-church "mentorship" side hustle he had going. Apparently he didn't have the access with just the calling alone. This is mentor business is mentioned and it confuses more than it informs, one might think that is a church program, or a part what an a Elder's Quorum does and it is not. Maybe this is what the prosecution did to enhance his conviction, trying to explain that he then had a 'position of authority' over the child like a teacher or a regular priest might, and ignorantly or intentionally conflated these two details of the case and in turn this article.

That is my word of the day:

Edited May 24, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Another Patriarchal religion ride with sex abuse.  No surprise there.

Spoiler alert: If religion were to disappear tomorrow there would still be sex abuse.

It isn't a "Patriarchal religion" problem - it's a human problem.

 

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Oh definitely. The hotline has nothing to do ministering to the abused.

How could a hotline minister to anyone?

When I was a bishop and had an abuse case I was looking for guidance on how to council with the abuses as well as the abuser. I called the hotline and was basically told not to talk to the abuser because if i did I might have to testify on  court. Not much help to me in ministering was it. 

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I guess this is part of what I don't understand about your suggested need for an ombudsman. When it comes to organizational hierarchy, the LDS church is almost militaristic.

If the abuse originated from someone in the chain of command then you simply report the abuse to that person's superior. Why would you need a special person just to let you know who that is?

 

How does a victim do that? How do they even know how to do it? Who tells them who to contact in the event of a problem, and in the event of a problem involving their local leader?

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Spoiler alert: If religion were to disappear tomorrow there would still be sex abuse.

It isn't a "Patriarchal religion" problem - it's a human problem.

 

That's overly simplistic. Some situations are more vulnerable to predation than others, as are some organisations.

[Amulek]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How does a victim do that?

Phone. Email. Personal visit. Whatever.

 

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How do they even know how to do it?

How do they know how to communicate with people? Is this a serious question?

 

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Who tells them who to contact in the event of a problem, and in the event of a problem involving their local leader?

Again, this is the benefit of having a religion that is highly structured. Everybody knows the chain of command.

If the local leader doing the abusing isn't your Bishop then you report the abuse to your Bishop. If your Bishop happens to be the abuser then you go over his head and talk with your Stake President.

There is an easy to follow chain of command for any individual in the church. The "who to contact" question really isn't at all a difficult one to answer, and certainly not one that needs a dedicated, paid position to manage.

 

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's overly simplistic.

I don't think it's any more simplistic than blaming the problem on "Patriarchal religion."

 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

These are less applicable to us, I think, because of the Church's "two deep" rule.  A bishop would never visit a home where a woman or child was present without being accompanied by another person (priesthood holder, or the bishop's wife).

I agreer most bishops would not but some would and do.  Also a bishop interviews youth all the time and that alone.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Also a bishop interviews youth all the time and that alone.

At least now the youth can have someone (like a parent) go in with them if they want.  That's an improvement I think.

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

In any event, the Church doesn't really…."fire" an alleged abuser.  

They do release from callings and could do so without public awareness the issue was abuse.  

Agreed.  But someone who is "fired" has lost his source of income, his ability to provide for himself and his home.  That is not the case when, say, a bishop or an EQP is released.

I think this distinction matters a bit because it partially explains the incentive in some faith groups to "move around" priests, pastors, etc. who are accused of abuse.  The financial injury to a pastor losing his job/career can be substantial, such that those around him (who may often have worked with him) may give him an undue benefit of the doubt, may look at the allegations of abuse with undue skepticism, may be more inclined to move him to another location so he can still keep working, and so on.

18 hours ago, Calm said:

There needs to be care taken to avoid consequences of false reporting, not sure where the line should be made, but I think there should better ongoing reporting to the local members of offenders in church.

Well, one big problem is that allegations of abuse often go unproven (in a criminal context), so it becomes difficult to distinguish valid-but-unproven allegations of abuse from "false reporting" situations.  And because the stigma of abuse is so serious, I'm not sure how we would go about "reporting to the local members of {unproven/unsubstantiated allegations of abuse asserted against someone who is a member of the} church."

Note how you reference "offenders in church."  How does the Church establish who is an "offender" and who is not?  I submit there are essentially only three ways:

Process (1) - Reliance on Criminal Prosecutions: Here the bishop is somehow made aware of criminal prosecutions and, when a person is convicted of abuse under the law, the bishop convenes a membership council and the person's membership is then annotated to reflect the conviction.  There are all sorts of ways things fall through the cracks here because the Church does not have any law enforcement or investigative capacity.  Bishops don't really have any sort of formal mechanism in place to monitor criminal prosecutions, such that they must

• (A) somehow hear about the criminal charges (likely through the grapevine),
• (B) continue to actively and affirmatively monitor the progress of the charges while they make their way through the court system (often a matter of many months), and
• (C) if and when the individual is found guilty, then the bishop convenes a council and annotates the individual's membership record.  

As you can see, there are all sorts of ways this monitoring process can fail.  The bishop may be released and neglect to notify the next bishop about an individual in the ward having pending criminal charges of abuse.  Or the individual may move out of the ward prior to charges being filed, such that his record is moved out of the ward (and the bishop may not know about the charges, or may be aware of the charges but not think to notify the new bishop).  Or a bishop may not hear about the criminal charges at all (the grapevine doesn't work well, for example).  Or else the bishop hears about the charges, but does not actively and affirmatively monitor the progress of the criminal case over time (this seems a bit far afield from a bishop's job description, after all).  And so on.  Lots of cracks through which these things can slip.

And what about someone who is not convicted?  What if a person is charged, but then acquitted?  Or what if the charges are dropped due to lack of sufficient evidence, or because the prosecution screws up in some way?  This happens all the time in criminal matters.  The allegation of abuse is still there, but nothing has been or will be done about it.  What does the Church do?  What does the bishop do?  Do we adopt a guilty-unti-proven-innocent, the-accusation-alone-is-good-enough-to-establish-wrongdoing approach?  Does the bishop stand up and announce "I want everyone to know that several months ago Brother Jones was charged with sexual misconduct, but the charges were dropped last week due to lack of sufficient evidence.  Nevertheless, everyone should be careful around him."?

And what about someone who is not even charged with abuse by civil authorities?  Well, let's review that next bit...

Process (2) - Confession by the Perpetrator: If the individual confesses to his misconduct, then the bishop's course of action is clear: convene a membership council.  This is by far the most common circumstance that arises, but only because bishops generally lack the training, resources, etc. to follow Process (1) above.

Process (3) - Adjudication of Guilt by Membership Council: If the individual does not confess, or else denies the abuse, the bishop can (and in fact is technically obligated to) convene a membership council.  However, my sense is that this sort of "contested" council, where the abuse has not been admitted, and must instead be proven through evidence, witness testimony, etc., are fairly rare.  They just don't happen that much.  Perhaps they should happen more.  The victim and other percipient witnesses need to participate, and it seems like they often don't want to (for a variety of reasons).

We often see situations in which a bishop receives an allegation of abuse against a member of his ward, or from a family member or friend.  Typically he should call the helpline, and the attorney helps the bishop figure out if reporting the abuse is authorized or appropriate (convening a Membership Council is, of course, a separate and purely ecclesiastical matter).  Sometimes reporting allegations of abuse is, and sometimes it is not.  For example, if the individual confesses to the abuse, and if the bishop has no other source of information about the abuse, and if the individual refuses to waive the priest-penitent privilege, then the bishop may be constrained from reporting.  This is, I think, a fairly rare occurrence, but it can happen.

More common, I think, are allegations that A) are not admitted to by the accused, and B) do not - for whatever reason - result in a criminal conviction.  This is by far the most common situation, and it can arise in any number of ways:

• (A) The victim refuses to report the abuse to law enforcement, or else waits too long to do so.
• (B) The victim reports the abuse, but then recants or else fails/refuses to cooperate with the prosecutor (which can make prosecution essentially impossible).
• (C) The victim reports the abuse, but then moves away.
• (D) The victim reports the abuse, but the prosecutor declines to file charges at all, or else files charges and later drops them (due to, for example, lack of evidence, the statute of limitations, and so on), or else the charges are dismissed due to error/misconduct by law enforcement and/or the prosecutor.
• (E) The victim reports the abuse, the accused refuses to take a plea, the prosecutor takes the case to trial, and the accused is found not guilty.

What does the bishop do in these circumstances?  As noted above, he should, in most cases, convene a Membership Council (or else the stake should do so).  As noted above, this takes quite a bit of time and consistency on the part of the bishop to monitor and keep track of the legal proceedings (since the membership council is often convened after the criminal proceedings conclude).  Does a particular bishop even know how to do that?  And what if the foregoing issues arise a few months before he is released and are still in process at the time of his release?  He could tell the stake president about the matter and ask that the new bishop take over the monitoring/tracking function.  But a new bishop may be a bit frazzled with all the new responsibilities and commands on his time, and he may neglect to keep up with still-in-process-in-the-courts criminal proceedings.

And what happens if the bishop convenes eventually convenes a Membership Council but the the victim refuses to cooperate by appearing to give evidence against the accused?  What if the victim has moved away or died?  What if the accused moves away?  What if the accused denies the charges altogether?  If he confesses to the abuse, then convening a Membership Council and meting out such measures as are appropriate, including annotating the individual's membership, is not that difficult.  But as you can see, there are all sorts of situations where, due to logistics or circumstances or the passage of time or whatever, the bishop may not have the ability to effectuate an annotation of the individual's record.  Let us briefly review the Church's process for annotation, which is set forth in Section 32.14.5 of the Handbook.  It is a two-step process:

• Step 1: The bishop and stake president submit written notifification to headquarters of the Church that an individual has A) admitted to the misconduct, and/or B) been convicted of the misconduct by civil authorities.
• Step 2: Headquarters (not the bishop or stake president) enters an annotation in the individual's membership record.

As you can see, the only ways an annotation arises is when the individual A) confesses to, and/or B) is convicted of, the abuse, or else possibly C) culpability is determined via a contested Membership Counsel (not common, I think).

In the absence of an annotation, can the bishop do anything along the lines of what you propose above ("better ongoing reporting to the local members of offenders in church")?  A few thoughts:

• Interestingly, Section 32.15.5 does not appear to account for a circumstance where the invidual neither A) admits to the misconduct, nor B) has been been convicted of the misconduct by civil authorities, but C) was nevertheless found culpable for the misconduct via a Membership Council.  I think this does not happen much because most membership councils are uncontested.  However, I would think that the results of the council would be sufficient for the bishop and stake president to use the process in Section 32.14.5, and for an annotation to be entered on the individual's record.
• The bishop can, in an abundance of caution, release the accused from any calling that may be questionable (such as working in the primary, where there are allegations of child abuse).  But this is an informal thing, and lacks the continuity of an annotation.  The individual can move away, or the bishop can be released, etc.  
• In a situation where the invidual neither A) admits to the misconduct, nor B) has been been convicted of the misconduct by civil authorities, either the bishop (or stake president) or Church headquarters may nevertheless confer with the individual and request that he consent to an annotation being entered on his membership record.  I actually saw this happen once.

In the end, though, I think there are many times when we are left with no feasible means to implement, as you put it, "better ongoing reporting to the local members of offenders in church."  This presupposes that the "offender" is, in fact, an offender.  That means someone, somewhere, has to competently adjudicate the matter.  A bishop in the Church faced with an invidual - who neither admits to the misconduct, nor has been been convicted of the misconduct by civil authorities - is going to have a hard time either getting an annotation entered, or else "reporting" the individual to "the local members."

And even if the individual's record is annotated, what then?  How would the bishop go about "reporting" that status to other members of the ward? 

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Even in cases where I have heard of church members being informed in a ward through a special meeting or something, follow ups through the years can be lacking.  We believe in repentance and while there is a dangerous class of predators that are repeaters who may have many victims over years of predation, iirc the majority do not.  

I'm not sure I can go along with that.  Recidivism by sexual offenders is a notoriously difficult thing to quantify.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The recidivism of sex offenders is difficult to measure.  The surreptitious nature of sex crimes, the fact that few sexual offenses are reported to authorities, and the variation in the ways researchers calculate recidivism rates all contribute to the problem.

Research has clearly shown that many sex offenses are never reported to authorities, and several studies have shown that the likelihood that a sexual assault will be reported to law enforcement decreases with the victim’s age.  In addition, only a subset of sex offenses that are reported to law enforcement result in the arrest of the perpetrator. Given these dynamics, there is widespread recognition that the officially recorded recidivism rates of sexual offenders are a diluted measure of reoffending.
...

Recidivism Rates for All Sex Offenders 

Perhaps the largest single study of sex offender recidivism to date was carried out by Langan, Schmitt, and Durose (2003). The study examined the recidivism patterns of 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 states in 1994.  The researchers found a sexual recidivism rate of 5.3 percent for the entire sample of sex offenders, based on an arrest during the 3-year followup period. The violent and overall arrest recidivism rates for the entire sample were much higher: 17.1 percent and 43 percent, respectively. Nearly 4 out of every 10 (38.6 percent) sex offenders in the study were returned to prison within 3 years of their release due to the commission of a new crime or a technical violation of their release conditions. 
...
In a meta-analysis involving 10 different studies, Harris and Hanson (2004) generated recidivism estimates based on new charges or convictions for sexual offenses, using 5-, 10-, and 15-year followup periods for several categories of sex offenders.  The sexual recidivism estimates for all sex offenders in the study were 14 percent at 5 years, 20 percent at 10 years, and 24 percent at 15 years. An important finding that emerged from the analysis was that the 15-year sexual recidivism rate for offenders who already had a prior conviction for a sexual offense was nearly twice that for first-time sex offenders (37 percent compared to 19 percent). Another important finding was that the rate of reoffending decreased the longer offenders had been offense-free.  Whereas 14 percent of the offenders in the analysis were sexual recidivists after 5 years of followup, only 7 percent of the offenders who were offense-free at that time sexually recidivated during the next 5 years of followup. 

Recidivism Rates for Rapists 

Researchers studying the recidivism of sex offenders are increasingly reporting recidivism rates specifically for rapists. Langan, Schmitt, and Durose (2003), for example, found that 5 percent of the 3,115 rapists in their study were arrested for a new sex offense during the 3-year followup period, 18.7 percent were arrested for a violent crime, and 46 percent were arrested for any crime. Rapists in the study with more than one prior arrest were rearrested at a rate nearly double (49.6 percent compared to 28.3 percent) that of rapists with just one prior arrest. Harris and Hanson (2004) reported sexual recidivism estimates for rapists (based on new charges or convictions) of 14 percent at 5-year followup, 21 percent at 10 years, and 24 percent at 15 years.7 Another study, noteworthy because of its 25­ year followup period, was conducted by Prentky and colleagues (1997). Generalizing some of the study’s findings to offenders who engage in rape behavior today is problematic because the study period began in 1959 and ended in 1985, and sex offender treatment and management practices were far different then than they are today. In addition, the study sample was small (136 rapists), and it consisted of individuals who were determined to be sexually dangerous and who were civilly committed. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Prentky and colleagues found that some rapists remained at risk to reoffend long after their discharge. Based on the 25-year followup period, the researchers found a sexual recidivism rate of 39 percent and a recidivism rate for any charge of 74 percent. 

Recidivism Rates for Child Molesters 

A relatively large body of research exists on the recidivism rates of child molesters. The study of sex offenders released from state prisons in 1994, by Langan and colleagues (2003), included a large sample (N = 4,295) of child molesters. The researchers reported that 5.1 percent of the child molesters in the study were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of their release, 14.1 percent were rearrested for a violent crime, and 39.4 percent were rearrested for a crime of any kind.  Similar to the pattern for rapists, child molesters with more than one prior arrest had an overall recidivism rate nearly double (44.3 percent compared to 23.3 percent) that of child molesters with only one prior arrest. As might be expected, child molesters were more likely than any other type of offender—sexual or nonsexual—to be arrested for a sex a crime against a child following release from prison. 

Harris and Hanson (2004) documented differential rates of recidivism for different types of child molesters. Table 1 presents the study’s recidivism estimates (based on new charges or convictions) for 5-year, 10-year, and 15 year followup periods for boy-victim child molesters, girl-victim child molesters, and incest offenders. 

Prentky and his colleagues (1997) also examined the recidivism of child molesters. Based on a 25-year followup period, the researchers found a sexual recidivism rate of 52 percent (defined as those charged with a subsequent sexual offense) using a sample of 115 child molesters who were discharged from civil commitment in Massachusetts between 1960 and 1984.  While the difference between the 52 percent sexual recidivism rate found by Prentky and colleagues (1997) using a 25-year followup period and the 23 percent rate found by Harris and Hanson (2004) using a 15-year follow period is striking, it can be interpreted in different ways. One interpretation is that first-time recidivism may occur for some child molesters 20 or more years after criminal justice intervention, and that recidivism estimates based on shorter followup periods are likely to underestimate the lifetime risk of child molester reoffending (Doren, 1998). An alternative interpretation is that the difference is primarily an artifact of sampling, as Harris and Hanson’s findings are based on a larger, more diverse sample of child molesters, including some serving community sentences, and the lifetime prevalence of sexual recidivism for child molesters is lower than the 52 percent suggested by Doren and is based, at least in part, on the Prentky et al. (1997) findings. 

The recidivism rates for rapists and child molesters are at once sobering and alarming.  And these rates are based on largely on re-arrest data.  And these data are likely diluted (perhaps have massively so) from the actual rates of re-offending (due to sex crimes going heavily unreported/undetected).

18 hours ago, Calm said:

We could discourage confession and efforts to change problematic behaviour if someone knows it will always be made a point to make sure to let a ward know that sometime in the past they abused someone.

Yes, this would effectively be a form of shunning.  

18 hours ago, Calm said:

But in the cases I am aware of, at least a couple do not show signs of repentance (they are pushing limits or crossing them).

The primary (as in first) purpose of membership restrictions is to "{h}elp protect others" (Section 32.2).  In this, however, the Church is materially constrained in what it can do because "membership restrictions are ecclesiastical, not civil or criminal" and "affect only a person’s standing in the Church. (See Doctrine and Covenants 134:10.)"  

In an emergency, "when disclosure {of otherwise confidential information} is necessary to prevent life-threatening harm or serious injury and there is not time to seek guidance," a local leader should go ahead and "disclose confidential information without first seeking such guidance" because "the duty to protect others is more important than the duty of confidentiality."  Generally, this would mean that the local leader "should contact civil authorities immediately."  (Section 32.2.4.)  Otherwise, however, local leaders should follow these guidelines (also from Section 32.2.4) :

Quote

Consistent with their duty of confidentiality, a bishop, stake president, or their counselors may share such information only as follows:

• They need to confer with the member’s stake president, mission president, or bishop about holding a membership council or related matters. The stake president may also confer with his assigned Area Seventy. If needed, the Area Seventy refers the stake president to the Area Presidency. Only the stake president decides if a council should be held or its outcome.

• The person moves to a new ward (or the priesthood leader is released) while membership action or other serious concerns are pending. In these cases, the leader notifies the new bishop or stake president about the concerns or pending action (see 32.14.7). He also informs the leader if the member may pose a threat to others.

• A bishop or stake president learns that a Church member who lives outside the ward or stake may have been involved in a serious sin. In that instance, he confidentially contacts that member’s bishop.

• It is necessary to disclose information during a membership council. All information gathered and shared as part of a membership council is confidential.

• A member chooses to give permission for the leader to share information with specific persons. These may include parents, Church leaders, or others who may provide support. The leader does not share information beyond the permission the member has given.

• It may be necessary to share limited information about the decision of a membership council (see 32.12.2).

In all other situations, the leader should refer to 32.4.5. These cases include when the law may require that a crime, such as child abuse, be reported to government authorities.

Section 32.4.5 ("Reporting to Government Authorities") gives instruction on when and how to report matters to civil authorities.  Section 32.12.2 ("Informing Others about a Decision") deals with when a local leaders may "share limited information about the decision of a membership council":

Quote

32.12.2

Informing Others about a Decision

If a bishop or stake president informally restricts a person’s membership privileges in personal counseling, he normally does not inform anyone else (see 32.8.3). However, these leaders communicate with each other about informal restrictions as they help members.

If a person’s membership privileges are formally restricted or withdrawn in a membership council, the bishop or stake president communicates the decision only to those who need to know. The following guidelines apply.

• He considers the needs of victims and potential victims and the feelings of the person’s family.

• He does not communicate the decision if the person is appealing it. However, he may communicate that it is being appealed if he feels it is necessary to protect potential victims. He may also communicate it to support the healing of victims (although he does not give victims’ names) or to protect the integrity of the Church.

• As needed, the bishop communicates the decision in confidence to ward council members. This is to inform leaders who might consider the person to be available for callings, teaching lessons, or giving prayers or talks. It is also to encourage leaders to offer care and support to the member and his or her family.

• With approval from the stake president, the bishop may communicate the decision in his ward’s elders quorum and Relief Society meetings if the situation involves:

  • Predatory behaviors that may threaten others.

  • Teaching false doctrine or other forms of apostasy.

  • Flagrant sins such as practicing plural marriage or using cultist teachings to attract a following.

  • Publicly contradicting the actions or teachings of general or local Church leaders.

• In such cases, the stake president may also need to authorize a communication to members of other wards in the stake.

• In some cases, the bishop or stake president may feel it would be helpful to notify some or all of the victims and their families that a membership council has been held for the person. He does this through their bishop or stake president.

• If a person’s predatory tendencies put others at risk, the bishop or stake president may give warnings to help protect others. He does not reveal confidential information and does not speculate.

• In all other cases, the bishop or stake president limits any communication to a general statement. He simply states that the person’s Church membership privileges have been restricted or withdrawn for conduct that is contrary to the laws and order of the Church. He asks those present not to discuss it. He does not ask whether they sustain or oppose the action.

• If a member is in good standing after a membership council (see 32.11.1), the bishop or stake president may communicate that to dispel rumors.

From above: "If a person’s membership privileges are formally restricted or withdrawn in a membership council, the bishop or stake president communicates the decision only to those who need to know."

As you can see, communicating to "others" about the misconduct of an individual is very carefully measured by the Church, and in almost all circumstances must be preceded by A) the individual being convicted by civil authorities, and/or B) the individual confessing to the misconduct, or C) the individual being found "guilty" of the misconduct via a Membership Council.  At that point the local leaders can pursue the foregoing annotation procedures and follow the foregoing guidelines for communicating misconduct to others.

IIRC, the revisions to the Handbook are only about six months old.  The foregoing guidelines are, I think, pretty good.  They strike a balance between various interests, including A) the welfare of members and others, B) the preservation of confidentiality (where appropriate), C) compliance with the law of the land, D) allowing space and circumstance for the individual to repent, E) provide for some semblance of "due process" (avoiding "guilty until proven innocent"-style situations), and so on.

Time will tell how these policies and guidelines play out when actually implements by bishops and stake presidents.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 24, 2022 by smac97

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

My 17 year old is partnered with a 60+ high priest who he has never spoken to a day in his life.  He's been partnered with him since he was 16 (maybe 15) but the man (who i'm sure is very nice but he's also single and a little odd so I don't know anything about him) has never tried to contact him. He's probably as uncomfortable with the assignment as my son is.

But it makes zero sense to require two deep leadership for youth activities and then send out the youth one-on-one with an adult that's not even a part of the youth program to visit other members.

Historically I had lots of AP youth assigned to me to do home teaching. Me, with the young man, alone, in a car, driving to appointments often in the evening.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Historically I had lots of AP youth assigned to me to do home teaching. Me, with the young man, alone, in a car, driving to appointments often in the evening.

True.  And historically, the two-deep rule didn't exist anyway so being alone with an adult wasn't out of the ordinary.

What I don't get is why youth are still assigned to minister one-on-one with an adult even though the two-deep rule is very much a thing.

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

These are less applicable to us, I think, because of the Church's "two deep" rule.  A bishop would never visit a home where a woman or child was present without being accompanied by another person (priesthood holder, or the bishop's wife).

I agreer most bishops would not but some would and do. 

And when they do, they are going against the guidelines and policies of the Church, and are putting themselves at risk.

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Also a bishop interviews youth all the time and that alone.

In the bishop's office.  With a chaperson a few feet away.

If we have any sort of substantive problem with bishops abusing kids during such interviews, I think the Church would be wise to take appropriate remedial measures (such as, for example, putting small windows in the door to the bishop's office, or else putting a video-only (no audio) CC system in the bishop's office so the chaperon could monitor the behavior but not the communications going on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

True.  And historically, the two-deep rule didn't exist anyway so being alone with an adult wasn't out of the ordinary.

What I don't get is why youth are still assigned to minister one-on-one with an adult even though the two-deep rule is very much a thing.

Perhaps the Church should clarify this.  Such assignments can take place, but they shouldn't travel together.  This could create logistical difficulties where the ward is spread out, but it may be worth the hassle.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And when they do, they are going against the guidelines and policies of the Church, and are putting themselves at risk.

In the bishop's office.  With a chaperson a few feet away.

If we have any sort of substantive problem with bishops abusing kids during such interviews, I think the Church would be wise to take appropriate remedial measures (such as, for example, putting small windows in the door to the bishop's office, or else putting a video-only (no audio) CC system in the bishop's office so the chaperon could monitor the behavior but not the communications going on.

Thanks,

-Smac

You reminded me of my daughter telling me years after the fact of an overly graphic and intrusive bishop’s interview she had when she was 12. It was definitely traumatizing for her, and I feel kind of guilty for letting her go through that. At the time it wouldn’t have occurred to me to give her advice about a bishop’s interview.

When I was 12, the bishop asked me if I masturbated. When I said I didn’t know what that meant, he explained it in way more detail than was necessary. At the time I didn’t even know such a thing was possible.

After my loss of faith, I told my kids that if the bishop asked them something inappropriate or made them uncomfortable they should leave and tell the bishop they could talk to me. And they needed to tell me. A couple of my kids did exactly that. 

A window in the door might prevent physical abuse but certainly not inappropriate verbal abuse (which graphic sexual questions surely are). At the very least parents need to give kids clear guidelines for such interviews. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I don't think it's any more simplistic than blaming the problem on "Patriarchal religion."

 

Why? Patriarchal refers to structure and practices, and such things which can facilitate certain behaviours, including abuse. 

*Edited for clarity.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You reminded me of my daughter telling me years after the fact of an overly graphic and intrusive bishop’s interview she had when she was 12. It was definitely traumatizing for her, and I feel kind of guilty for letting her go through that. At the time it wouldn’t have occurred to me to give her advice about a bishop’s interview.

When I was 12, the bishop asked me if I masturbated. When I said I didn’t know what that meant, he explained it in way more detail than was necessary. At the time I didn’t even know such a thing was possible.

I am sorry that this happened.  I think the Church has substantially improved its guidance to bishops as to how to conduct such interviews.  This does not, of course, erase the past experiences of people like your daughter and you.  I was fortunate in that the bishops I interacted with never behaved this way.

See, e.g., Section 31.1.5 (emphasis added) :

Quote

31.1.5

Ask Inspired Questions and Listen Carefully

When meeting with a member, ask questions that help you understand his or her situation. Give the member opportunities to express his or her thoughts and feelings freely.

While the member is talking, listen carefully and attentively. Seek to understand fully before responding. If needed, ask follow-up questions to be sure you understand. But don’t probe unnecessarily.

Listening helps establish trust. It helps others feel understood, valued, and loved. People often need someone they trust to listen as they work through challenges. Listening can also help you open your heart to promptings from the Holy Ghost.

And Section 31.3.1.2 (emphasis added) :

Quote

31.3.1.2

Topics to Discuss

The main purpose of meetings with youth is to build faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and help the youth follow Them. These meetings should be uplifting spiritual experiences. Leaders strive to help each youth feel loved, encouraged, and inspired to become more like the Savior.

The youth and the leader could discuss:

• Spiritual experiences that are building the youth’s testimony of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the restored gospel.

• How the youth is keeping his or her baptismal covenants.

• The youth’s preparations to make and keep temple covenants.

• The youth’s personal goals to become more like the Savior in all areas of life (see “Children and Youth”).

• The importance of personal and family prayer and scripture study.

• How to strengthen relationships with parents and other family members.

• The principles and standards in the booklet For the Strength of Youth.

• Ways the youth can participate in God’s work of salvation and exaltation (see 1.2).

• With a young man, his experiences fulfilling his priesthood duties and his preparation to be ordained to the next priesthood office.

• The blessings of participating in seminary.

• Preparing to serve a full-time mission (see 24.3). The Lord expects each able young man to prepare to serve. Young women who desire to serve should also prepare. Leaders should be sensitive toward those who may be excused from full-time missionary service (see 24.4.4). For information about service missions, see 24.2.2.

When discussing obedience to the commandments, leaders may refer to temple recommend interview questions and the booklet For the Strength of Youth. They ensure that discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation.

I would hope that bishops take these guidelines to heart and implement them well.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

After my loss of faith, I told my kids that if the bishop asked them something inappropriate or made them uncomfortable they should leave and tell the bishop they could talk to me. And they needed to tell me. A couple of my kids did exactly that. 

A window in the door might prevent physical abuse but certainly not inappropriate verbal abuse (which graphic sexual questions surely are). At the very least parents need to give kids clear guidelines for such interviews. 

The Church's new guidlines address this, I think (emphasis added) :

Quote

31.1.4

Help the Member Feel Comfortable and Safe

Some members have had experiences that make them feel anxious or overwhelmed when they meet with a Church leader. Seek ways to help them feel calm, safe, and comfortable. Find out from the member what you can do to help.

Always give the member the option of having someone else be present during an interview or meeting. When meeting with a member of the opposite sex, a child, or a youth, ensure that a parent or another adult is present. He or she may join the meeting or wait outside the room, depending on the preferences of the member with whom you are meeting.

If meeting at the meetinghouse makes the member uncomfortable, decide together on a different place to meet. Find a place where the Holy Ghost can be present and you can keep confidences. Also consider your own safety and the safety of the member. For information about meeting with members virtually, see 31.4.

Another important part of helping members feel safe is keeping confidences. Reassure the member that your conversation will be confidential.

Do not share confidential information with anyone—including your spouse or other Church leaders—unless the member gives permission. Continue to keep such matters confidential even after you are released. Breaking confidences can harm a member’s faith, trust, and testimony. Members are more likely to seek help from Church leaders if they know that what they share will be kept confidential.

For more information about confidentiality, including legal information, see 32.4.4.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Phone. Email. Personal visit. Whatever.

 

How do they know how to communicate with people? Is this a serious question?

 

Again, this is the benefit of having a religion that is highly structured. Everybody knows the chain of command.

If the local leader doing the abusing isn't your Bishop then you report the abuse to your Bishop. If your Bishop happens to be the abuser then you go over his head and talk with your Stake President.

There is an easy to follow chain of command for any individual in the church. The "who to contact" question really isn't at all a difficult one to answer, and certainly not one that needs a dedicated, paid position to manage.

 

I disagree with you. Especially as someone who has needed ecclesiastical support in situations of abusive leadership.

I also disagree with you as someone who has been a close observer of abuse victims trying to disclose to church leadership.

The issue of actually getting the contact information is one thing, it does get difficult when trying to go above the stake presidency. But more than that is policy. Members aren't supposed to skip rank. They go to their bishop, perhaps sometimes to the SP, then it's those leaders who are meant to send information up the ranks. 

So that means that a member encounters difficulty if the local leader is the abuser or if they disagree about handling it. 

As I said before, the structure does not allow for direct communication between members and the higher echelons. When it happens, it's extraordinary. It's not normally allowed.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I am sorry that this happened.  I think the Church has substantially improved its guidance to bishops as to how to conduct such interviews.  This does not, of course, erase the past experiences of people like your daughter and you.  I was fortunate in that the bishops I interacted with never behaved this way.

See, e.g., Section 31.1.5 (emphasis added) :

And Section 31.3.1.2 (emphasis added) :

I would hope that bishops take these guidelines to heart and implement them well.

The Church's new guidlines address this, I think (emphasis added) :

Thanks,

-Smac

My point is that parents should prepare kids ahead of time as to what to do if things go awry in the interview. Of course, when my son said he didn’t want to discuss what the bishop was getting into, the bishop threatened to not advance him in the priesthood if he didn’t answer. Needless to say, I told the bishop he had no business discussing such things with a 14 year old, and if my son wasn’t advanced in the priesthood, that was on the bishop. 

That is interesting about not asking questions that arouse curiosity or experimentation. How exactly does one draw that line? I would think the best bet is to keep things general, such as, “Do you keep the law of chastity as the church teaches it?” Most priesthood-age kids understand the question, and I can’t think of a reason to dig deeper. I wonder if a lot of bishops just do interviews the way they were interviewed as children. That would explain a lot to me. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My point is that parents should prepare kids ahead of time as to what to do if things go awry in the interview. Of course, when my son said he didn’t want to discuss what the bishop was getting into, the bishop threatened to not advance him in the priesthood if he didn’t answer. Needless to say, I told the bishop he had no business discussing such things with a 14 year old, and if my son wasn’t advanced in the priesthood, that was on the bishop. 

That is interesting about not asking questions that arouse curiosity or experimentation. How exactly does one draw that line? I would think the best bet is to keep things general, such as, “Do you keep the law of chastity as the church teaches it?” Most priesthood-age kids understand the question, and I can’t think of a reason to dig deeper. I wonder if a lot of bishops just do interviews the way they were interviewed as children. That would explain a lot to me. 

What did the bishop decide to do with your son?

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I disagree with you. Especially as someone who has needed ecclesiastical support in situations of abusive leadership.

I also disagree with you as someone who has been a close observer of abuse victims trying to disclose to church leadership.

The issue of actually getting the contact information is one thing, it does get difficult when trying to go above the stake presidency. But more than that is policy. Members aren't supposed to skip rank. They go to their bishop, perhaps sometimes to the SP, then it's those leaders who are meant to send information up the ranks. 

So that means that a member encounters difficulty if the local leader is the abuser or if they disagree about handling it. 

As I said before, the structure does not allow for direct communication between members and the higher echelons. When it happens, it's extraordinary. It's not normally allowed.

Yep. Top-down organizations usually struggle with communication and accountability. Often, going over a leader’s head can have negative consequences. A Bolivian guy I knew in the mission had an issue in a small branch: the church had rented a property as a meetinghouse that previously had been a brothel. Branch attendance went way down because no one wanted to be seen going in there. This missionary (who was the branch president) went up the chain of command through the district and mission presidency, and got nowhere. In desperation, he wrote a letter to President Kimball explaining the situation. Some weeks later, a very angry mission president showed up in the town and berated this missionary. They did find a different property, but the mission president made sure this elder served the rest of his mission in the “punishment” (castigo) areas.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

We don't know if the Bishop didn't know when extending the calling, perhaps there were other circumstances like perhaps this was a small branch. I'm not sure it was his calling that caused this, it was this non-church "mentorship" side hustle he had going. Apparently he didn't have the access with just the calling alone. This is mentor business is mentioned and it confuses more than it informs, one might think that is a church program, or a part what an a Elder's Quorum does and it is not. Maybe this is what the prosecution did to enhance his conviction, trying to explain that he then had a 'position of authority' over the child like a teacher or a regular priest might, and ignorantly or intentionally conflated these two details of the case and in turn this article.

That is my word of the day:

You know I don't really care.  Why dance around the issue. These days it seems prudent that to protect both the organization and members that background checks are essential

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What did the bishop decide to do with your son?

He advanced him, but then he said, very loudly at a “Young Women in Excellence” meeting, “So, who’s going to ordain your son? Obviously, *you* can’t do it.”

Did I mention this bishop was kind of a jerk?

Edited May 24, 2022 by jkwilliams

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

He advanced him, but then he said, very loudly at a “Young Women in Excellence” meeting, “So, who’s going to ordain your son? Obviously, *you* can’t do it.”

Did I mention this bishop was kind of jerk?

Ugh.