SBC sex abuse report

[bsjkki]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  Your broad and ugly disparagements of the bishops and stake presidents of the Church have bothered me.

Thanks,

-Smac

And your dismissive arrogance when people share their experience and concerns is well noted. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

my experience, I believe these sorts of situations would be rare.

Does that mean though we don’t need to be concerned with them, create a system where they won’t fall through the gaps so easily? The one lost sheep not sought after?

An example, a former bishop had an affair with a married friend of mine.  Knowing her and knowing him, I am 100% sure he was the instigator. He was aware she was having issues with her husband in part through his bishop role.  He was also her boss at work.  I see it not fully consensual and as grooming and sexual abuse given him knowing of (through his calling) and using her vulnerable position and his position of authority over her.

She finally confessed to the then current bishop as she was torn up inside by guilt and shame about what she was doing to her family in spite of his major pressure on her not confess, how it would destroy both families.  Up to the last minute he was begging her not to confess.  He justified the affair to her by telling her she was his plural wife because they would later be sealed together, therefore they were doing nothing wrong.  They were both excommunicated and then both rebaptized exactly a year later…in spite of her reporting to the leaders he was still sending her love notes and still telling her that even if the relationship was over in the here and now because of others, they would be plurally together in the eternities and she would be his ‘first wife’…and yet there was no delay in his rebaptism…and seriously, just a year for a former bishop who was at the time of the adultery still holding callings of teaching, working with youth?  This wasn’t just adultery, it was apostasy as well if he believed his plural wife crap, which she was under the impression he did. 
 

Last I heard two or three years post rebaptism he was called to be working with the YM while my friend and her family have left the Church…in part because of the loss of trust that she and her loved ones would be treated as having value, listened to and cared for when in pain, including deep spiritual pain for having been abused by one of her spiritual leaders.  She saw him and his family receiving compassion and support from their priesthood leaders in the bishopric and the stake, not so much her and her family.  She felt helpless and that she would just be punished more (because the wife of the bishop was making their mutual friends choose sides and she was the queen bee of the ward before, during, and after her husband was bishop and the affair just led her to upping her game; my friend still had two minor kids who were having trouble fitting in after the affair was made known as well as her very active husband and herself; they eventually got permission to go to another ward which angered her that she was the one being required to give up her friends while the one who pushed for the affair and wasn’t repenting was being treated better than the prodigal son…as if he had never broken faith) if she went back to leadership again to complain again about his ongoing attention after being told in essence his repentance process was not her business.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

categorically

You seem to be speaking of my personal experiences with a very broad brush. When people have disagreements with their church leaders, these issues should not be categorically dismissed as 'simple' and it is important how they are dealt with for the health and well being of all involved. Disagreements and/or offenses (a dirty ward in our culture) can be trivial or horrific even when it does not involve physical or sexual abuse. And while you might dismiss something as trivial, it might not be trivial to those effected. But, I will again state, if things are at all subjective, the member complaints will be dismissed and the church leader upheld. It's how it works. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, filovirus said:

I will be in this situation next year. I will have a teacher age son and two priest age sons. As of right now I am assigned to minister with my eldest son. My middle son is not assigned to minister, and my youngest son is still a deacon and our ward does not assign ministering callings to deacons. But I would love to have all my sons be my companions, as long as I am not assigned too many families to minister to.

Why not take two if the families don’t mind and the EQP doesn’t think it needs to be official?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

he harder part is knowing that you can contact someone's supervisor.    A lot of people get a No and stop there.  Not just in the church, but in all aspects of life.   I can believe that someone didn't think to go higher up a lot more easily than I can believe that they couldn't find the higher up.   Often when I deal with IRS agents or attorneys I will just casually ask how the supervisor is doing.  Casually letting them know that I know their supervisor goes a long way toward keeping things civil. 

And many times victims are chosen to be victims by their abuser because they are isolated, out of the loop and lack skills for communicating and seeking out help.  I highly doubt many victims of sexual abuse by leaders or those victims who are subjected to inappropriate pastoral care for abuse know many area authorities on a first or even last name basis (forgive me for spacing on the right name).  Using your own situation (someone who not only deals with connecting and conflict as part of your profession, but who apparently has a pretty wide network of connections already in place) as a picture of what can work for them, those who likely have a limited network and limited skills seems unrealistic to me.

[Tacenda]

nvmd

Edited May 26, 2022 by Tacenda

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

If a bishop has said or done something untoward or counterproductive or harmful, the stake president will want to take corrective action. 

He will have to believe the bishop has said or done something harmful first though.  That may be the complicated part.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Danzo said:

When I have had a problem with a church leader, Usually I call the bishop's executive secretary (or stake presidents) ask for an interview and discuss why I feel something should be done differently I usually try to give the person I am disagreeing with the benefit of the doubt and assumes they had good intentions.   It seems to go pretty well. 

How much you being who you are affects that, do you think?

 My dad was able to get things done relatively easily.  6’2”, lean and athletic, handsome with strong features, very charming, a slightly intimidating face though…the family says he had a gangster look about him when he wasn’t smiling…oozing self confidence, the world was his and everyone around him told him so as he was growing up as far as I can tell.  His motto was you could do anything if you were just committed to it enough and he was frequently exasperated when those around him failed or expressed frustration at how hard something was.  He just didn’t see anything as that difficult and often it wasn’t when he stepped in to take care of stuff as he was very smart and very capable.  

What really got him annoyed was when we set up agreements (he treated parenting kind of like a business), but we folded before the goal was reached because he just didn’t see why we couldn’t stick with it like he did when he was committed to something…which was so absolutely frustrating to me because he was clueless it was him being the obstacle to our success because he was off doing something else worthwhile and not providing the support he promised.  His motto worked for him because many people (family and employees) would set aside what we were doing and take care of a request from him immediately…and this impact on others didn’t register with him, not because he saw himself as more important, but because it didn’t occur to him he was interrupting.  There were several ‘contracts’ I gave up on with him because he wasn’t following through on his part of the contract, responding back after I sent him my part or did my thing and I didn’t know what was next expected of me because of lack of feedback and then having to face him when he showed up thinking everything was in place and I couldn’t explain to him why…took me into my 40’s watching from afar (Canada )to figure what had been going on all along.

 He could never see the turmoil he stirred up by passing through.  He was insulted when I told him how everyone in the family would often drop what they were doing, mess up their attempts to establish routines, or whatever they were doing to attend to his needs first as he saw himself as more or less self sufficient.  He thought I was calling him selfish and a coddled child more or less  

The one blip in his life was his difficulty in getting along with some of his bosses.  He got stuck in promotion; worked for United Airlines, he oversaw the entire San Francisco part of maintenance operations which iirc was the primary center for that side of operation, was at least for the West…massive operation, but never got the next one or two steps up to be a Vice President because he would never complete a master’s as he was too bored in class, knowing all of it already; he would drop out after a few classes rather than endure it.  He liked his current job and the only reason promotion was appealing (since he would be much more into the paperwork, administration side and working with the suits) was the money and not having to work to be bossed by men threatened by him as they were younger than him and with less experience, but with that crucial degree which he was so dismissive of.  His typical approach was to bypass and go to the ‘supervisor’ if he couldn’t handle it himself, earning him a number of enemies.  He couldn’t understand why since he got the job done and done well.  And generally he was in the position he could pretty much ignore it (I think bosses got transferred/promoted a lot, he did help in making most of them look good) until the years of oblivion to his Godzilla ways caught up and he lost his backing and a particularly bad boss caused him to retire early and set up a consulting business.

All that to explain why when someone has a position of decent power and knows how to use it, etc tells me something is relatively easy, rather simple even, I tend to smile and roll my eyes a bit.  A lot of times highly effective people are unaware of the advantages they have, especially if they make use of them well for others.  The waves are mostly behind them and it appears smooth sailing in front because others often get out of their way even without asking.  Why wouldn’t anyone if they benefit from the effective person’s success?  And when someone doesn’t move, they get to face the certainty, the confidence.  It can be hard to resist the appearance of sincere, unquestioned confidence unless one has the same faith in oneself and one’s position.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[2BizE]

On 5/23/2022 at 10:46 PM, bsjkki said:

Abusers find opportunities to abuse. It's a not a religion problem. It is an abuser problem. Have you studied teachers? Too many abusers to begin counting. What we need to do is have common sense protections and awareness. I am not aware of many times a known abuser was 'promoted' in the church or passed off to new ward knowingly to continue on with the bad behavior. Can we do better? Yes. There is a still a lack of awareness in some leaders who don't take reports seriously or downplay the seriousness of behavior. Some allow themselves to get schmoozed by the abuser. Some will say, it didn't happen at church so there is nothing I can do about it. 

You may want to read the article that everyone else on this thread are discussing about the member from Minnesota recently convicted of sexual abuse. He had a record from Utah, but was promoted to EQ President, then abused more children.

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Why are you being so defensive and hostile? Ugly disparagements? Give me a break. You don’t have to agree with others’ experiences and opinions, but there is no call for this dismissive, condescending hostility. 

Accusations are being made without the evidence being put forth. If she doesn't want to put the evidence forth, she really shouldn't make the accusations.

These reactions are being made with the factual basis of zero.

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Accusations are being made without the evidence being put forth. If she doesn't want to put the evidence forth, she really shouldn't make the accusations.

These reactions are being made with the factual basis of zero.

She's talking about HER experience. Did you even read this thread?

[Nofear]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

…tortures puppies for fun and profit. 

Wait, wait, one could have been making money doing this? … Asking for a friend.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

8 hours ago, bsjkki said:

 

It does?  How so?  Unless one of the two parties to the discussion (the individual or the stake president) behaves improperly by publicizing the dispute to other members of the ward, this sort of thing seems . . . unlikely.

If you can’t elaborate the circumstances you were involved in and expect us to take you at your word you experienced whatever, why are you refusing to take bsjkki at her word?  She is hardly a typically over dramatic poster.

Quote

 

Except I do know.  I can't elaborate, but I have had some experience in this.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is supposed to be.  And it usually is.

How would you know?  Serious question. Most members I have know off line who have had significant, disturbing issues at stake level in the end drop it and just keep attending in pain and hope over time the pain gets less or they develop a thicker skin or if they lose hope and just feel too beaten down, they quietly leave the Church.  They would never show up on a database and most other members would never know. 
 

The older I get, the more trusting relationships I have established, the more I am finding members who have had major issues with leaders who I am shocked over because they are still fully in and typically uncomplaining.  I really hope it is rare, but I seriously wonder if it is not. 
 

Just to be clear, I am talking about damaging pastoral care of some kind, that may involve sexual abuse, but most often does not in the stories that I have been told. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

No deprivation of property or life.

But deprivation of community and often opportunity to contribute to others, both essential needs in our lives, and the Church is sometimes the primary source of both in someone’s life at different stages of their life, especially if they have invested their past leisure time into their callings and ministering of others.  To have those taken away by leaders can be spirit draining. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

overblown and melodramatic.

I am really not seeing it in her language. Seeing it in yours though. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

don't share the adversarial picture of the Church that you have.

Or maybe you are misinterpreting what bsjkki is saying and it is not her who has created the adversarial picture. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Gadzooks.  What a horrible caricature you are drawing.  What an ugly, divisive, unfair, inaccurate stereotype

If only we could see ourselves as others see us. 

[Calm]

Meadowchik’s story did involve the Bishop interfering with possible consequences to her family’s life and property because the tenant was unstable, a tenant who threatened to kill her husband and was suggestive about the rest of her family  

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67314-church-disciplinary-councils-regarding-disputes-between-members/

The neighbor was following Smac’s advice and going to the SP while Meadowchik was attempting to respect and work with her Bishop. The result was the SP listened to the neighbour and told the Bishop to pull her recommend. Because she wasn’t the one complaining.  Getting her recommend pulled on top of the rest of the baggage her leaders dropped on her family is not just an emotional issue.  There is a physical cost to living under daily harassment and even if the Bishop (and likely the SP as well) was not approving of the harassment, he was enabling it…not intentionally, but it was still happening. 
 

This wasn’t just a civil dispute, but it was a 24/7 in her home harassment Meadowchik and her family were enduring. It was where they lived, in their home territory, which is supposed to be the place of refuge. 
 

My memory is there were also some legal deadlines missed because of following the counsel of the Bishop (he assured them bills would be paid so they dropped court proceedings, the thread mentions the advice, but not the aftermath), which made the situation with the neighbor even more unstable and indefinite and therefore dangerous and resource intensive.  I may be conflating it with another case though. 
 

I tried finding the thread where she shared later events, but couldn’t find it. 
 

My finding and posting this thread in no way is meant to suggest Meadowchik owes any explanation or details of her personal experience. I appreciated the chance to refresh my memory and thought others might as well without hopefully requiring any more investment by Meadowchik into that difficult time.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[Rain]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Accusations are being made without the evidence being put forth. If she doesn't want to put the evidence forth, she really shouldn't make the accusations.

These reactions are being made with the factual basis of zero.

Editing because I am afraid I wasn't clear enough.

Lets say that I had a 15 year old son who was having sex with his 2 girlfriend's (I don't,  just trying to share a possible example, but it is based on similar things I've heard over the years) and because I worked full time the bishop thought I should stop taking the sacrament because I wasn't behaving like a mom should. In fact he felt my membership was at stake. It could be traumatizing to me to choose to maybe lose my membership or give up my job when money was already tight. I would have a disagreement with the bishop over that. 

Then let's say the bishop and the SP were best friends so I wasn't confident the SP would agree with me over his bishop.  

So if I wanted to say I have some experience with disagreement with the bishop being traumatizing would you expect me to share with the world wide web that my teen son was have sex with 2 girls? (it's an important part of the story)

Couldn't you maybe have empathy when I say I have some trauma over a disagreement with the bishop without knowing the details?

What the examole was doesn't matter here. What matters in this post is why someone might not share the story and how we can react to to that.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Rain

[bsjkki]

clarification

Edited May 26, 2022 by bsjkki

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

🤦‍♀️😪

I've edited because I think I wasn't clear. 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Meadowchik’s story did involve the Bishop interfering with possible consequences to her family’s life and property because the tenant was unstable, a tenant who threatened to kill her husband and was suggestive about the rest of her family  

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67314-church-disciplinary-councils-regarding-disputes-between-members/

The neighbor was following Smac’s advice and going to the SP while Meadowchik was attempting to respect and work with her Bishop. The result was the SP listened to the neighbour and told the Bishop to pull her recommend. Because she wasn’t the one complaining.  Getting her recommend pulled on top of the rest of the baggage her leaders dropped on her family is not just an emotional issue.  There is a physical cost to living under daily harassment and even if the Bishop was not approving of the harassment, he was enabling it.  
 

This wasn’t just a civil dispute, but it was a 24/7 in her home harassment Meadowchik and her family were enduring. It was where they lived, in their home territory, which is supposed to be the place of refuge. 
 

My memory is there were also some legal deadlines missed because of following the counsel of the Bishop (he assured them bills would be paid so they dropped court proceedings, the thread mentions the advice, but not the aftermath), which made the situation with the neighbor even more unstable and indefinite and therefore dangerous and resource intensive.  I may be conflating it with another case though. 
 

I tried finding the thread where she shared later events, but couldn’t find it. 
 

My finding and posting this thread in no way is meant to suggest Meadowchik owes any explanation or details of her personal experience. I appreciated the chance to refresh my memory and thought others might as well without hopefully requiring any more investment of Meadowchik into that difficult time.

Thanks so much for giving the summary and the link.

I just want to add this which I draw from my experience: as traumatic as these events were for me, I can only imagine sexual abuse being much more traumatizing. Then if a church leader is the abuser, or even if a well-intentioned church leader missteps in his handling of the situation, it can further the trauma.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

even if a well-intentioned church leader missteps in his handling of the situation,

In rereading your comments, it sounds like the leaders had the best of intentions, but lack of training and lack of accurate awareness of enough of the context (since they were getting fed tons of false info from the mentally and emotionally unstable tenant) contributed to them increasing the trouble, not lowering the conflict as they supposed they could.

I have through this thread become more open to the idea of an ombudsman, not because of you though, but rather the reactions to your idea and others’ difficult situations underline where difficulties lie and leads me to believe there is a greater need for something more organized than I thought.  I was thinking more of just a part time (hopefully) assistant for an area seventy (someone contacts the seventy and he refers them to his specialist assistant) as I am guessing the seventy’s plate is already quite full and this seems something that needs full attention when someone is in crisis to avoid delays and further unnecessary traumatizing if a more difficult situation, plus having a limited calling means less distractions which means less likely to miss something important as well as greater chance of developing significant familiarity with social resources in the community.  Training would be limited to this area and so could be more in depth without being too invasive in their time.  Leadership might even be able to find someone with similar training in their profession to handle it. 

However, perhaps the role needs to be a separate ‘line of authority’ instead of an assistant to avoid the inherent biases that will exist and should exist in social relationships. We need to care for and be loyal to our friends and I would hope the men who work with each other in local and higher leadership positions in the church are good friends….And are loyal and supportive of each other. But this creates the need for independent oversight when analyzing effectiveness and potentially more negative qualities of leaders’ pastoral care.   A service missionary or missionary couple might be useful here, someone from out of the area would not have the longterm friendships that could get in the way, though they would need training in local resources…maybe overlap the missions for a month or two to take advantage of the previous missionaries’ experience and to prevent losing track of cases with the turnover.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Does that mean though we don’t need to be concerned with them, create a system where they won’t fall through the gaps so easily? The one lost sheep not sought after?

An example, a former bishop had an affair with a married friend of mine.  Knowing her and knowing him, I am 100% sure he was the instigator. He was aware she was having issues with her husband in part through his bishop role.  He was also her boss at work.  I see it not fully consensual and as grooming and sexual abuse given him knowing of (through his calling) and using her vulnerable position and his position of authority over her.

She finally confessed to the then current bishop as she was torn up inside by guilt and shame about what she was doing to her family in spite of his major pressure on her not confess, how it would destroy both families.  Up to the last minute he was begging her not to confess.  He justified the affair to her by telling her she was his plural wife because they would later be sealed together, therefore they were doing nothing wrong.  They were both excommunicated and then both rebaptized exactly a year later…in spite of her reporting to the leaders he was still sending her love notes and still telling her that even if the relationship was over in the here and now because of others, they would be plurally together in the eternities and she would be his ‘first wife’…and yet there was no delay in his rebaptism…and seriously, just a year for a former bishop who was at the time of the adultery still holding callings of teaching, working with youth?  This wasn’t just adultery, it was apostasy as well if he believed his plural wife crap, which she was under the impression he did. 
 

Last I heard two or three years post rebaptism he was called to be working with the YM while my friend and her family have left the Church…in part because of the loss of trust that she and her loved ones would be treated as having value, listened to and cared for when in pain, including deep spiritual pain for having been abused by one of her spiritual leaders.  She saw him and his family receiving compassion and support from their priesthood leaders in the bishopric and the stake, not so much her and her family.  She felt helpless and that she would just be punished more (because the wife of the bishop was making their mutual friends choose sides and she was the queen bee of the ward before, during, and after her husband was bishop and the affair just led her to upping her game; my friend still had two minor kids who were having trouble fitting in after the affair was made known as well as her very active husband and herself; they eventually got permission to go to another ward which angered her that she was the one being required to give up her friends while the one who pushed for the affair and wasn’t repenting was being treated better than the prodigal son…as if he had never broken faith) if she went back to leadership again to complain again about his ongoing attention after being told in essence his repentance process was not her business.

I have seen this happen before in other wards.  It's not unusual for the the more well-liked person or family in the dispute to be the one that gets the support of the ward, especially if they have an extroverted personality and have outgoing kids.

If a shy, introverted, person or family with baggage comes up against a ward's "popular" family, it gets real ugly real fast (in my experience).   This is especially true if one family has had a male in leadership positions before in the church (so personally has worked with a lot of leaders/men in the ward before and has a lot of male friends in leadership) and the other doesn't.