SBC sex abuse report

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I wasn't very open to the idea of an ombudsman either until the reactions of some of the posters here to anyone even suggesting that some leaders in the church cause harm over more than grave misconduct. 

If there are many more members out there who believe that in a serious disagreement between a member and a leader, that we owe it to the leader to believe them over the member, then that is reason enough to have someone else who can step in and actually be impartial and open to the possibility of fallible bishops and stake presidents without the implication that such a person is automatically antagonistic towards the church.

Danzo also made an excellent argument himself in favor of the need for ombudsman when he posted on how only a fool represents themselves in such emotional cases.  If what Danzo is saying is true, then it is harmful for the church to require members to represent themselves in disputes with leaders.

Likewise, it is harmful for leaders to believe they can represent themselves (or their close associates) in disputes with members without bias and personal emotions also getting in the way.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, bluebell said:

I wasn't very open to the idea of an ombudsman either until the reactions of some of the posters here to anyone even suggesting that some leaders in the church cause harm over more than grave misconduct. 

If there are many more members out there who believe that in a serious disagreement between a member and a leader, that we owe it to the leader to believe them over the member, then that is reason enough to have someone else who can step in and actually be impartial and open to the possibility of fallible bishops and stake presidents without the implication that such a person is automatically antagonistic towards the church.

Danzo also made an excellent argument himself in favor of the need for ombudsman when he posted on how only a fool represents themselves in such emotional cases.  If what Danzo is saying is true, then it is harmful for the church to require members to represent themselves in disputes with leaders.

Likewise, it is harmful for leaders to believe they can represent themselves (or their close associates) in disputes with members without bias and personal emotions also getting in the way.

 

I think it is human nature ( and the normal state) to close ranks and protect your in group from an attack. That’s why we see these abuse scandals at so many organizations. Good intentions aren’t enough. You need good strong training, independent oversight and well communicated open lines of communication outside the normal chain of command for exceptions. 

[Meadowchik]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yes, and this pattern isn't anything necessarily malicious or even intentional, it can just be a form of unconscious bias, which is especially easy to fall into in moments of conflict.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think it is human nature ( and the normal state) to close ranks and protect your in group from an attack. That’s why we see these abuse scandals at so many organizations. Good intentions aren’t enough. You need good strong training, independent oversight and well communicated open lines of communication outside the normal chain of command for exceptions. 

I completely agree.  It's another reason why psychologically, men tend to side with the male "accused" in situations where abuse is alleged.  Or, adults tend to side with the known adult accused when the accusation is made by a child.

In other words, it is human nature to side with the person that you 1) have the most in common with and then 2) know better and care about.   

Most men in power tend to believe other men in power.  Not because they want to cover up abuse or don't care about the victim, but because they can more readily put themselves into the shoes of an innocent leader accused of misconduct.  They know how they would want others to respond if it was them being accused of something, so they respond in kind when it's someone else being accused. 

(This was discovered to be one of the main reasons that Dr. Nassar was able to abuse so many gymnasts for so long, even when girls were speaking up and telling people what was going on).

This doesn't mean that everyone who circles the wagons around "their people" are evil.  None of us want abuses (of any kind) to go unchecked.  We just want to support the people (or organization) that we know and have experiences with and love.

But it's that very bias that can make us into people who enable and protect evil in the name of loyalty.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

This doesn't mean that everyone who circles the wagons around "their people" are evil.  None of us want abuses (of any kind) to go unchecked.  We just want to support the people (or organization) that we know and have experiences with and love.

But it's that very bias that can make us into people who enable and protect evil in the name of loyalty.

This sounds like replacing a presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt --- or at least, never having something definitely settled, because you can't prove a negative. It would be going from the status quo (heavy systemic bias in favor of priesthood leaders) to constantly questioning, suspecting, and second-guessing them. 

If the "new and improved" process (ombudsman, dedicated staff and hotline, extra layers of bureaucracy, etc.) yields an outcome that the accusers aren't happy with (and the likelihood of this is high, in my view), then it would also be because of a good ol' boys system, circling the wagons, etc. It would be proof positive in the victims' eyes that the fix is in. 

I don't see that adding layers of "independent" bureaucracy would really be an improvement in practical terms. It might sound good in the hypothetical on a message board, but I don't think it would actually be different from the system already in place. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

This sounds like replacing a presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt --- or at least, never having something definitely settled, because you can't prove a negative. It would be going from the status quo (heavy systemic bias in favor of priesthood leaders) to constantly questioning, suspecting, and second-guessing them. 

If the "new and improved" process (ombudsman, dedicated staff and hotline, extra layers of bureaucracy, etc.) yields an outcome that the accusers aren't happy with (and the likelihood of this is high, in my view), then it would also be because of a good ol' boys system, circling the wagons, etc. It would be proof positive in the victims' eyes that the fix is in. 

I don't see that adding layers of "independent" bureaucracy would really be an improvement in practical terms. It might sound good in the hypothetical on a message board, but I don't think it would actually be different from the system already in place. 

I don't really see it as a process to make sure that the accuser is happy with the outcome.  

I see it as a way to take the need to "represent yourself" out of the process (both for the accuser and the accused).  Doing so doesn't guarantee justice, mercy, or happiness in the end but--if Danzo is correct--it makes it a more likely outcome than the old system.

This idea that the system that we have right now is the very best that we can do and so it's useless to try to improve it in any way because nothing would be better, is laughable to me.  I'm pretty sure that we have no reason to think that we've reached peak performance levels on this topic. 

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

Well, the age of consent in Indiana is 16, so that would be a mitigating factor. 

Also, if we are legitimately concerned about "characteriz[ing]" things accurately, having intercourse with someone old enough to legally participate in sexual activity doesn't make you a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children - not sexually mature individuals who have yet to reach the age of majority. 

That being said, I kind of wish somebody would have walked on stage and punched his lights out. He's still a horrible person for doing what he did.  

 

If you say the word ephebophile I will start screaming. Continually and irrelevantly.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't really see it as a process to make sure that the accuser is happy with the outcome.  

Not in the lofty hypothetical discussion of it on a message board, but I think that is exactly what the process would be used for, if implemented. 

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I see it as a way to take the need to "represent yourself" out of the process (both for the accuser and the accused).  Doing so doesn't guarantee justice, mercy, or happiness in the end but--if Danzo is correct--it makes it a more likely outcome than the old system.

I question this in practical terms. I'm fortunate to not have been embroiled in situations like these, while I know that they do exist and do happen. I think we need to be careful about letting the outlier exceptions drive policy and process for the whole. I think that the sorts of outrageous examples that have been discussed here are completely outside of the experience of most members. Granted, when it does hit home personally, then it matters a great deal to you (starfish analogy). But, adding layers of training, certification, bureaucracy, systems, processes, etc. very rarely are better, in my experience. They make people feel better, and give the appearance of "something being done," but I think the original potential and actual problems still exist, with or without the "new and improved" process or system. 

I'm not against improvement or progress, per se, if I feel that it would actually be improvement or progress, but I really don't think this ombudsman idea would really do what some people think it would. I think the actual and perceived outcomes would largely be the same as they would without it. 

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This idea that the system that we have right now is the very best that we can do and so it's useless to try to improve it in any way because nothing would be better, is laughable to me.  I'm pretty sure that we have no reason to think that we've reached peak performance levels on this topic. 

I know that none of us can really pin a number on this, but how much of a problem do you think "bad, incompetent, awful" bishops and stake presidents really is? How many "starfish" are there, really? Just for fun, if we imagine a line with "dumpster fire" on one end, and "Leibniz/Dr. Pangloss --- best of all possible worlds" on the other, where would you put the general situation on that line? I would be much closer to "best" than I would to "tear it down." Do you think things really are that bad for most people?

 

[The Nehor]

Put in an elderly missionary couple in this position as independent investigator and you will get fewer elder missionary couples.

Honestly the people you need in a position to do this would be some grizzled veteran social worker or family court lawyer or other people who deal with the muck and broken lives.

I have seen cases where stake presidencies tend to side with members routinely over bishops when complained to and it is not a good situation either. Ward leadership lives like they are under perpetual threat of a veto killing any activity or program and no one is motivated to do much of anything. People refuse to accept callings or ask for releases. It is a mess.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Honestly the people you need in a position to do this would be some grizzled veteran social worker or family court lawyer or other people who deal with the muck and broken lives.

I was thinking this would be the background of at least one of the couple missionaries. Should have made that clear. I was thinking there would be a benefit to having individuals who did not have local attachments, so my mind went to missionaries…but sufficient training for the more complicated stuff would likely only come through professional venues, so getting a retired social worker, mediator, etc volunteer for the position like they do with other specialized callings (just saw a request for an accountant who specializes in oil and gas resources) for missions seems like the easiest at times put something like this in place.  The recruitment aspect is at least already in place. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not in the lofty hypothetical discussion of it on a message board, but I think that is exactly what the process would be used for, if implemented. 

I question this in practical terms. I'm fortunate to not have been embroiled in situations like these, while I know that they do exist and do happen. I think we need to be careful about letting the outlier exceptions drive policy and process for the whole. I think that the sorts of outrageous examples that have been discussed here are completely outside of the experience of most members. Granted, when it does hit home personally, then it matters a great deal to you (starfish analogy). But, adding layers of training, certification, bureaucracy, systems, processes, etc. very rarely are better, in my experience. They make people feel better, and give the appearance of "something being done," but I think the original potential and actual problems still exist, with or without the "new and improved" process or system. 

I'm not against improvement or progress, per se, if I feel that it would actually be improvement or progress, but I really don't think this ombudsman idea would really do what some people think it would. I think the actual and perceived outcomes would largely be the same as they would without it. 

I know that none of us can really pin a number on this, but how much of a problem do you think "bad, incompetent, awful" bishops and stake presidents really is? How many "starfish" are there, really? Just for fun, if we imagine a line with "dumpster fire" on one end, and "Leibniz/Dr. Pangloss --- best of all possible worlds" on the other, where would you put the general situation on that line? I would be much closer to "best" than I would to "tear it down." Do you think things really are that bad for most people?

 

First, I think what might be helpful is if we can all acknowledge that a bishop or stake president does not have to be "bad, incompetent, or awful" to do great harm.  It's hard to admit that we can be both good intentioned and also hurt people greatly, but since it's the truth, admitting it is a necessary step to fixing it.

Second, if we really believe Christ when He outlined the importance of leaving the 99 to save the one, should we be careful not to let outlier exceptions drive policy?  You say that as if it's a given--and maybe in the business world or some other secular organization it is--but when we are talking about people's souls, I don't think that argument holds up.  At all.

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you say the word ephebophile I will start screaming. Continually and irrelevantly.

Hmmm.  I learned a new word today.  

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Put in an elderly missionary couple in this position as independent investigator and you will get fewer elder missionary couples.

Honestly the people you need in a position to do this would be some grizzled veteran social worker or family court lawyer or other people who deal with the muck and broken lives.

I have seen cases where stake presidencies tend to side with members routinely over bishops when complained to and it is not a good situation either. Ward leadership lives like they are under perpetual threat of a veto killing any activity or program and no one is motivated to do much of anything. People refuse to accept callings or ask for releases. It is a mess.

Oh heck no, we do not need "independent investigators".  

But I agree with the bold.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Put in an elderly missionary couple in this position as independent investigator and you will get fewer elder missionary couples.

At least, few who would want to do that (senior couples get to pick what they do and where they go). 

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have seen cases where stake presidencies tend to side with members routinely over bishops when complained to and it is not a good situation either. Ward leadership lives like they are under perpetual threat of a veto killing any activity or program and no one is motivated to do much of anything. People refuse to accept callings or ask for releases. It is a mess.

This is a very good point. There has been a presumption here that the good ol' boys network always circles the wagons and looks out after its own. You are correct that knee-jerk agreeing with complaining members about bishops is also not a good thing. 

When I was called a second time, I replaced a bishop who was disciplined and had left an $80,000 deficit in fast offerings. There were six families who needed to be "taught welfare principles" (cut off --- they were abusing the system and making no effort for their situation to be short-term, even though they had the ability and opportunities to). This resulted in death threats, the need to park my car in the driveway on other streets, etc. Some of these resulted in letters written to the stake president and area seventy, and fortunately in my case, these were all handled properly. Their complaints were taken seriously, and I was asked to respond (including providing some records, like assistance given and bank statement copies), but the process was reasonable for everyone involved. I could see this ombudsman system easily being "weaponized" and bishops being harassed with never-ending frivolous "discovery" and queries (demands that they justify themselves) from people who are upset and want different outcomes. 

I don't think this would be the panacea that some people think it would be, and I also don't think it would really mitigate bona fide cases of "ecclesiastical malfeasance and malpractice." The poor ye shall always have with you . . . 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I also don't think it would really mitigate bona fide cases of "ecclesiastical malfeasance and malpractice." The poor ye shall always have with you . . . 

And yet, look at everything (time, money, resources, volunteers, working with other organizations, continuously changing policies and processes from time to time to make sure things are working as good as possible, etc.) the church does to try to help the poor anyway.   

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

First, I think what might be helpful is if we can all acknowledge that a bishop or stake president does not have to be "bad, incompetent, or awful" to do great harm.  It's hard to admit that we can be both good intentioned and also hurt people greatly, but since it's the truth, admitting it is a necessary step to fixing it.

When the leaders are "good and competent," but still "do great harm," then it is from the perspective of the person who feels harmed. We're talking here mainly about giving and taking offense (and receiving it). It wasn't due to not following policy, or following policy "badly" (incompetence). In these cases, all that really can be done (and all that the ombudsman process is likely to result in, anyway), is listening, validation, and apologizing. I think that in the vast majority of cases like this, leaders already do (or learn to do) this on their own. It seems like what is being proposed is to have more "training" and mandatory courses for leaders, with an independent "complaint department" that would follow-up with the accused leaders when there are complaints. I think that this would really just end up leading to what happens in the vast majority of "hurt feelings" cases without this process. The outliers are going to be there in about the same numbers, anyway. 

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Second, if we really believe Christ when He outlined the importance of leaving the 99 to save the one, should we be careful not to let outlier exceptions drive policy?  You say that as if it's a given--and maybe in the business world or some other secular organization it is--but when we are talking about people's souls, I don't think that argument holds up.  At all.

I don't think leaving the 99 for the one means that we should tailor and shape policy, systems, and processes for a global church for these rare (but harrowing to the starfish) outlier cases. I don't think "teaching the rule, and dealing with the exception case-by-case," as President Oaks has taught, means that we are not ministering to the one. By definition, leaving the 99 and ministering to the one means that the "default setting" is geared to the 99 (you wouldn't have to leave the 99 --- venture into "exception territory" --- otherwise). To "let outlier exceptions drive policy," as you put it, wouldn't be a good thing for the 99 or for the one, either, in the long run, I think. It would be like letting the needs of the self-contained life skills students drive policy, systems, and processes for an entire school of thousands of students who aren't in that boat. Maybe the analogy isn't the best, but it illustrates how the outlier driving policy for the vast majority isn't really a good way to run anything. And, it's not like the needs of the smaller population aren't being addressed when the policy is driven by the needs of the non-outliers. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

When the leaders are "good and competent," but still "do great harm," then it is from the perspective of the person who feels harmed.

Because someone who is competent never makes a big mistake?

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

We're talking here mainly about giving and taking offense (and receiving it).

Not me.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

When the leaders are "good and competent," but still "do great harm," then it is from the perspective of the person who feels harmed. We're talking here mainly about giving and taking offense (and receiving it). It wasn't due to not following policy, or following policy "badly" (incompetence). In these cases, all that really can be done (and all that the ombudsman process is likely to result in, anyway), is listening, validation, and apologizing. I think that in the vast majority of cases like this, leaders already do (or learn to do) this on their own. It seems like what is being proposed is to have more "training" and mandatory courses for leaders, with an independent "complaint department" that would follow-up with the accused leaders when there are complaints. I think that this would really just end up leading to what happens in the vast majority of "hurt feelings" cases without this process. The outliers are going to be there in about the same numbers, anyway. 

I don't think leaving the 99 for the one means that we should tailor and shape policy, systems, and processes for a global church for these rare (but harrowing to the starfish) outlier cases. I don't think "teaching the rule, and dealing with the exception case-by-case," as President Oaks has taught, means that we are not ministering to the one. By definition, leaving the 99 and ministering to the one means that the "default setting" is geared to the 99 (you wouldn't have to leave the 99 --- venture into "exception territory" --- otherwise). To "let outlier exceptions drive policy," as you put it, wouldn't be a good thing for the 99 or for the one, either, in the long run, I think. It would be like letting the needs of the self-contained life skills students drive policy, systems, and processes for an entire school of thousands of students who aren't in that boat. Maybe the analogy isn't the best, but it illustrates how the outlier driving policy for the vast majority isn't really a good way to run anything. And, it's not like the needs of the smaller population aren't being addressed when the policy is driven by the needs of the non-outliers. 

From my perspective we are talking about how good men and women can still make hurtful decisions when ruled by their ego, pride, self-righteousness, or personal biases.  As long as good people are fallible, they can harm others.  I get that your time being bishop has biased you against some perspectives, and that is completely normal.  We all have our biases.  Trying to work in ways that limit our biases impacting others is the point of this discussion.

Being willing to acknowledge our biases is the first step in doing that.

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not me.

Me neither.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because someone who is competent never makes a big mistake?

Isn't a "big" mistake (as opposed to "small mistakes," which everyone makes) the opposite of "competent?" Isn't being able to avoid big mistakes what competent means? 

Can you think of some hypothetical (or maybe not-so-hypothtical) examples of big mistakes that an otherwise competent bishop/stake president could make?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Isn't a "big" mistake (as opposed to "small mistakes," which everyone makes) the opposite of "competent?" Isn't being able to avoid big mistakes what competent means? 

Can you think of some hypothetical (or maybe not-so-hypothtical) examples of big mistakes that an otherwise competent bishop/stake president could make?

Trusting the wrong person?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Trusting the wrong person?

Can you flesh out the hypothetical? Do you mean, trusting person A, when he should have trusted person B (or remained neutral)? Or something else? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Can you flesh out the hypothetical? Do you mean, trusting person A, when he should have trusted person B (or remained neutral)? Or something else? 

Like Mark Hoffman say. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Like Mark Hoffman say. 

I know general information about the Mark Hoffman saga, but not details. Did his bishop trust him as far as Church callings? Was his bishop involved in Hoffman's documents trade (as an intermediary, making introductions, etc.)? Or, are you referring to the Brethren not knowing that he was a fraud?