SBC sex abuse report

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, ttribe said:

And you're duty-bound to defend them to the death, right?

Die on every hill apparently.

[Calm]

55 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?

Nope.  Competent means one is generally capable of avoiding big mistakes, but they are not magically protected from doing so.  Competent people make big mistakes all the time because they are overworked, distracted, and especially overconfident.  Sometimes they are so used to being right all the time, they don’t always stop and consider they may be wrong.  

My very competent father listened to a competent friend of his who had gotten overly excited about a piece of property and my dad lost a good chuck of money because the area was never developed. My mother had counseled him not to buy it.  I have a relative with an excellent driving record who crashed his car because he made the choice to push himself to get to their destination that day and he fell asleep and unfortunately reduced his passenger to the level of a 6 year old for the rest of her life.  My husband is a very competent and safe motorcyclist, but was anxious to get to work and came too close behind a car which suddenly turned in front of him, giving him a broken rib and punctured lung because he had decided to carry his laptop in a bag on his side that day and fell on it when he had to lay his bike down to avoid collision.

——

Very competent, very sharp church, absolutely fantastic leaders I was personally acquainted with allowed an unrepentant apostate and adulterer to teach youth because they chose to believe his no doubt highly persuasive public displays of repentance while choosing to dismiss the claims of the woman he had abused and continued to harass.

In another case in an old ward, a very competent bishop chose to follow standard policy even though exceptions were allowed and it resulted in a special needs child and his mother having to miss church completely because they wouldn’t make necessary adjustments for him.  This was a major hardship for the mother who depended on church in many ways as well as it isolated the child.

In the case of Meadowchik, it sounds like her bishop was quite good and competent, which is why she trusted him when he stepped out of his comfort zone and interfered with a legal dispute, the result was increased danger for her family and a withdrawal of access to part of the support system normally given to faithful members, the temple.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

There has been a presumption here that the good ol' boys network always circles the wagons and looks out after its own.

 

No, there hasn’t.  But we are addressing when friendship or other connections between leaders interfere with balanced judgment.  Just because something hasn’t been mentioned in a particular context doesn’t mean it is being dismissed.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[bsjkki]

Wouldn’t a big mistake by a stake President be calling a Bishop who was a swindler? A Bishop calling a rapist as a counselor? 
 

Do you really believe God would inspire those callings? 
 

I don’t. Sometimes inspiration is not clear or we think we are doing God’s will but it’s really our will. Doesn’t mean the Bishop or the Stake President is completely incompetent. 
 

In my experiences, it was Bishops the handling of  situations that hurt my family. Some actions had long term repercussions that we still deal with. A loss of trust that has been very difficult to restore due to ongoing issues. These were not bad men or bad people but maybe in over their head. 

[Amulek]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As long as good people are fallible, they can harm others.

Including ombudsmen, yes?

Also, one of the things that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around with such a position, is where would this fall with respect to ecclesiastical authority?

Say, for example, you have got an EQP and RSP who participated in an affair. The EQP confesses to his Bishop / SP and claims that everything was consensual. The RSP, however, contacts the ombudsmen office and reports that she was actually coerced by the EQP, is now traumatized, and doesn't want to talk about the matter with the Bishop or anyone else right now because it is just too traumatizing to do so.

How is the Bishop supposed to determine whether or not the RSP ought to be subject to church discipline? Does he just have to trust whatever the ombudsmen says without ever talking with the RSP directly? What if the Bishop is skeptical (for cause or perhaps even without cause) that the RSP was truly coerced and doesn't want to sign her temple recommend without further information. Would the ombudsmen be empowered to sign the recommend in lieu of the Bishop? In lieu of the Stake President?

I don't know. It just seems like this could all get very messy.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I don't think this would be the panacea that some people think it would be

Again, overstating the positions of others.  Adding an additional layer of pastoral care and communication through a more impartial, trained individual would obviously not solve all problems.  It could prevent some significant ones though.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Hmmm.  I learned a new word today.  

It is a good ‘shibboleth’. Anyone who corrects the term pedophile with ephebophile will know a disturbing amount of information about age of consent laws, probably opposes them, and should probably be on a government watchlist.

Edited May 26, 2022 by The Nehor

[Calm]

The Church recognizes the importance of having trained historians researching and preserving the history, it recognizes the importance of having trained auditors overseeing the financial operations of wards and the Church in general.  They use professionally trained individuals in the building and maintenance operations of the Church.  It has legal assistance for its bishops when necessary.  It already has professional counselors working in Family Services.  Is it such a stretch to add some level of professional oversight for members when dealing with leaders in other highly sensitive, problematic areas?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is a god ‘shibboleth’. Anyone who corrects the term pedophile with ephebophile will know a disturbing amount of information about age of consent laws, probably opposes them, and should probably be on a government watchlist.

Ach!  Is it okay to just point out that someone is not technically a pedophile because I think it can create misunderstandings and confusion about several things?  I actually would raise age of consent laws if the partner is not a minor as well.  I know the term “ephebophile”, but forget how to spell it, so rarely use it.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My very competent father listened to a competent friend of his who had gotten overly excited about a piece of property and my dad lost a good chuck of money because the area was never developed. My mother had counseled him not to buy it.  I have a relative with an excellent driving record who crashed his car because he made the choice to push himself to get to their destination that day and he fell asleep and unfortunately reduced his passenger to the level of a 6 year old for the rest of her life.  My husband is a very competent and safe motorcyclist, but was anxious to get to work and came too close behind a car which suddenly turned in front of him, giving him a broken rib and punctured lung because he had decided to carry his laptop in a bag on his side that day and fell on it when he had to lay his bike down to avoid collision.

Thank you for the thought and time you put into these examples!

I think investment mistakes, vehicle accidents, etc. are a completely different discussion than your examples below (ecclesiastical decisions). 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Very competent, very sharp church leaders I was personally acquainted allowed an unrepentant apostate and adulterer to teach youth because they chose to believe his no doubt highly persuasive public displays of repentance while choosing to dismiss the claims of the woman he had abused and continued to harass.

Taking this at face value (assuming that all details are as represented here), I would say that this is an example of incompetence. Especially if the continued harassment was known (I assume that they didn't know about it). 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

In another case in an old ward, a very competent bishop chose to follow standard policy even though exceptions were allowed and it resulted in a special needs child and his mother having to miss church completely because they wouldn’t make necessary adjustments for him.  This was a major hardship for the mother who depended on church in many ways as well as it isolated the child.

Judgment calls are "ground zero" when it comes to complaints about leaders. This one is interesting, in that the complaint is that policy was followed instead of the desired exception. What "necessary adjustments" were they wanting, without which they had "to miss church completely?" Just curious. 

ETA: Exceptions always seem reasonable and necessary when they have to do with us. My experience (and I have favored and advocated exceptions before) is that they rarely work out. I've come to feel that exceptions should be exceptional. 

This is interesting timing because my son will be baptizing his friend in our ward on Saturday. She's been attending church with us, and has been taught in our home. She lives outside of our mission and in a different city, and I still feel that she should have been taught and baptized in her home ward (they were very willing, and excited to fellowship her). We met her mother at graduation last night (she's 18, her mother isn't thrilled about her conversion, and her grandmother doesn't know yet. Extremely anti-Mormon), and her home situation was a factor in her not wanting to be taught or attending church in her city. The two mission presidents and the two bishops all decided and agreed that she should be baptized in our ward, and we're going to do everything we can to help her stay active (she and a large number of my son's friend group, member and non-member, are following him to NAU for school. They have good student wards there, and this group of school friends is going to be a really good addition). But, I still don't think the exception should have been made. I think my son should have gone and attended church in her city with her while she was being fellowshipped and integrated. 

I've never had boundary exceptions work out, even when they appear "on paper" and with common sense to be "can't miss." I've grown to be really careful with boundary exceptions and exceptions in general. 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

In the case of Meadowchik, it sounds like her bishop was quite good and competent, which is why she trusted him when he stepped out of his comfort zone and interfered with a legal dispute, the result was increased danger for her family and a withdrawal of access to part of the support system normally given to faithful members, the temple.

Interfering with a legal/landlord-tenant dispute I would classify as incompetent. And applying ecclesiastical sanctions based on that compounds that. 

---

I don't think that the proposed ombudsman process would have affected the first two. If judgment calls by leaders are micromanaged by bureaucrats, there would be a growing shift towards the office assuming more and more of the role of a bishop. I do think that training, chastisement, etc. would probably ensue in the first example --- especially given the focus on abuse and harassment over the last two decades. 

I think that the proposed ombudsman process would probably have been helpful in Meadowchick's case. What I don't understand about it is why the leaders involved didn't meet with both parties at the same time (maybe they did, and I'm wrong about that). I've found it helpful when working with two parties who contradict and refute each other's story to get them together and hammer it out in real time. When the leader meets separately and carries the message of "Well, they said this is what happened. Oh? Hmmm, I'll have to tell them that and ask about this" back and forth, it's easier for the party in the wrong to obfuscate and muddy the water. It's a lot harder to do that when there is real time denial, confirmation, or confrontation. Of course, they should probably not have been refereeing a landlord/tenant dispute in the first place. 

I don't think a third party is going to overrule very many leader judgment calls, unless it is very clear that they are wrong (or they shouldn't be involved with it in the first place).

Edited May 26, 2022 by rongo

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ach!  Is it okay to just point out that someone is not technically a pedophile because I think it can create misunderstandings and confusion about several things?  I actually would raise age of consent laws if the partner is not a minor as well.  I know the term “ephebophile”, but forget how to spell it, so rarely use it.

Depends on the context. I agree with you on changing age of consent but leaving in room for not being a criminal or sex offender if the two minors are close in age.

In a clinical context the terms have a split meaning and the distinction can be valuable there.

I think the best response I have ever seen to someone trying to ‘defend’ someone abusing a minor by pointing out that they were not technically a pedophile was someone else saying something along the lines of: “Oh? So they are not stuck with a sexual fetish or attraction that is repugnant. Their sexuality is normal but they choose to seek out minors deliberately because they are easier to victimize? Well, that makes things better.”

There has been a push to lower age of consent laws generally pushed quietly by (mostly) oddball religious groups and some of the more vile takes on libertarianism.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“Oh? So they are not stuck with a sexual fetish or attraction that is repugnant. Their sexuality is normal but they choose to seek out minors deliberately because they are easier to victimize? Well, that makes things better.”

Great response, lol. 
 

There is a fetish with virgins, untouched by anyone else but the predator I believe. I find that repugnant as well, as if a sexual partner is property one has a right to completely own.

[rongo]

40 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Wouldn’t a big mistake by a stake President be calling a Bishop who was a swindler? A Bishop calling a rapist as a counselor? 

Do you really believe God would inspire those callings? 

I don’t. Sometimes inspiration is not clear or we think we are doing God’s will but it’s really our will. Doesn’t mean the Bishop or the Stake President is completely incompetent. 

In my experiences, it was Bishops the handling of  situations that hurt my family. Some actions had long term repercussions that we still deal with. A loss of trust that has been very difficult to restore due to ongoing issues. These were not bad men or bad people but maybe in over their head. 

This gets into discernment, which is a separate (but also difficult) issue. Unless he was known to be a swindler, but was called, anyway, and then it is incompetence, in my book. 

I've shared this before, but my counselor was called in by a Seventy when they lived in Mapleton. They were thinking of calling a man to be stake president, but there had been some concerns expressed about his business practices. He was recommended as someone who could speak with some knowledge about him. He told him frankly that he also had grave concerns about his honesty in business, and strongly recommended not calling him. He was asked if he were to be called, would he sustain him. He replied that, having told what he knew and believed, if he were called anyway, then he would sustain him. The man was sustained as stake president, and a week later, fled the country on the heels of indictments because of business fraud. 

I consider this to be incompetent on the part of the Seventy who called him. I also don't think an ombudsman oversight system over calls issued by general authorities would be appropriate, or would work. If that ever came to be the case, then we should just turn over running the Church to Kirton McConkie. To me, the benefits and blessings of real discernment outweigh the outlier cases when there are breakdowns. This can be a hard statement, because the single most difficult question for us to answer (making any other faith crisis question pale in comparison, in my view) is why God allows unspeakable things to be done by men called by prophesy and revelation. Part of the answer is the standard answers to the Problem of Evil (God doesn't remote control people, leaders are fallible, everyone has his agency, etc.), but these do not satisfactorily explain why God wouldn't intervene if a grossly unworthy man were called to a position where he continued to commit gross wickedness. It's the most difficult problem to explain, especially to victims, if he has any. 

Despite this, the benefits and blessings that come from bona fide discernment and revelation in calls are well worth the breakdowns that God allows, in my book. I don't like the idea of trying to eliminate "risk" with guardrails is a good idea, because it would be a system "beneath our privileges" (in the main, not in individual outlier cases). 

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

This gets into discernment, which is a separate (but also difficult) issue. Unless he was known to be a swindler, but was called, anyway, and then it is incompetence, in my book. 

I've shared this before, but my counselor was called in by a Seventy when they lived in Mapleton. They were thinking of calling a man to be stake president, but there had been some concerns expressed about his business practices. He was recommended as someone who could speak with some knowledge about him. He told him frankly that he also had grave concerns about his honesty in business, and strongly recommended not calling him. He was asked if he were to be called, would he sustain him. He replied that, having told what he knew and believed, if he were called anyway, then he would sustain him. The man was sustained as stake president, and a week later, fled the country on the heels of indictments because of business fraud. 

I consider this to be incompetent on the part of the Seventy who called him. I also don't think an ombudsman oversight system over calls issued by general authorities would be appropriate, or would work. If that ever came to be the case, then we should just turn over running the Church to Kirton McConkie. To me, the benefits and blessings of real discernment outweigh the outlier cases when there are breakdowns. This can be a hard statement, because the single most difficult question for us to answer (making any other faith crisis question pale in comparison, in my view) is why God allows unspeakable things to be done by men called by prophesy and revelation. Part of the answer is the standard answers to the Problem of Evil (God doesn't remote control people, leaders are fallible, everyone has his agency, etc.), but these do not satisfactorily explain why God wouldn't intervene if a grossly unworthy man were called to a position where he continued to commit gross wickedness. It's the most difficult problem to explain, especially to victims, if he has any. 

Despite this, the benefits and blessings that come from bona fide discernment and revelation in calls are well worth the breakdowns that God allows, in my book. I don't like the idea of trying to eliminate "risk" with guardrails is a good idea, because it would be a system "beneath our privileges" (in the main, not in individual outlier cases). 

I don’t believe God calls unworthy people to serve. It is the mistakes of humans this happens. I think worthy people might ‘fall’ during their service. That’s on them. 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

Despite this, the benefits and blessings that come from bona fide discernment and revelation in calls are well worth the breakdowns that God allows, in my book. I don't like the idea of trying to eliminate "risk" with guardrails is a good idea, because it would be a system "beneath our privileges" (in the main, not in individual outlier cases). 

Why not remove historians and accountants and building maintenance and allow the righteous to work through discernment and revelation?  Why have any Family Services people?  Why did Brigham hire an architect for the temple once it had apparently been revealed?

What is risk to you is actual pain for others, hopefully the cries won’t disturbed the privileged.  Shouldn’t let the vulnerable hold anyone back, not like we are supposed to be picking them up and carrying them along with us. 
 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is a good ‘shibboleth’. Anyone who corrects the term pedophile with ephebophile will know a disturbing amount of information about age of consent laws, probably opposes them, and should probably be on a government watchlist.

Actually, I love knowing there’s a correct term for it. I hate when they refer to these people as pedophiles. They aren’t, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t still something very wrong with them. 

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I don’t believe God calls unworthy people to serve. It is the mistakes of humans this happens. I think worthy people might ‘fall’ during their service. That’s on them. 

I mostly agree with this. I agree that almost always, when someone with hidden serious sins is called, it's because of a lack of discernment --- not because God actually inspired him to be called. 

What gives me pause about making this an absolute is experience. When my family moved into town after I was released as a bishop, we purposely chose the ward we moved into because of its bishop. He was on the high council, and really went above and beyond to work with and minister to people who had faced stake-level discipline. A really kind, service-oriented man. He had serious, ongoing moral sins going on, and was caught in the act by his wife. They had struggled with the infidelity throughout their marriage, but she had believed that it had long since stopped. The fact that he was doing it while serving as a bishop was DEFCON 1 for both of them, and things moved swiftly (his discipline was extra strict because of his office, as it should be --- in terms of wait time for rebaptism/reinstatement). The thing is --- God worked through him and his office. He was really inspired in several things (he had been in for a year and a half before I replaced him), and it frightened him. As we met after, he was scared and confused as to how God could have inspired him and how he could have felt the Holy Ghost while doing those sorts of things. Obviously, God honored the office and the keys, even when he wasn't worthy. The real question is whether God Himself inspired his call. Regardless, he probably wouldn't have been brought to full and complete repentance if he hadn't been a bishop at the time. 

I know of a Navajo bishop on the Navajo Nation who was an alcoholic and a terrible administrator (meetings were haphazard and infrequent, and a lot fell through the cracks). It was a real trial for the people in the ward with Church experience in other places off the rez, but they were struck after the fact that every single one of his many children served missions and were sealed in the temple (a good track record for any family, but almost unheard of among his people). It's possible, in my mind, that God had a larger goal in placing him in a position he was unworthy and unsuited for, and which the ward suffered in many ways for, in order to bring to pass larger things that would ripple through generations. 

I would not extend this to a bishop abusing children or anything like that. Where obvious lack of or breakdown in discernment and revelation like that happens, the question for me becomes why God didn't intervene and make things very clear before he was put into a calling like that. I do not believe that God would sacrifice children or parents in order to bring to pass repentance for that bishop. 

[rongo]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why not remove historians and accountants and building maintenance and allow the righteous to work through discernment and revelation?  Why have any Family Services people?  Why did Brigham hire an architect for the temple once it had apparently been revealed?

Because building construction and bookkeeping and repairs/janitorial tasks are not really comparable to "judge in Israel" duties and responsibilities. We could just turn over pastoral care to Kirton McConkie, Family Services, etc. and try to ensure that there is no trauma, ever, but the Church would shrivel up and die with ward communities under a regime like that. 

[bsjkki]

In my experience, it’s best not to need pastoral care and then everything is good. Minimal interaction is the best course. 😏

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

In my experience, it’s best not to need pastoral care and then everything is good. Minimal interaction is the best course. 😏

And IMO, if someone is abused they should go to the law before the law firm.😉

In my case, years ago, my three year old was mature enough to tell me the neighbor man, who had a son her age and my daughter played at their house (I was a naive mom and will feel guilt for the rest of my life) was at their home and he apparently put her on the counter and had her reach for candy and he touched her on her private parts. I was in the middle of loading the dishwasher when she told me, you know how you remember exactly where you are or doing when hearing shocking news or so forth? And my first call wasn't to the law force, it was to my bishop, this man's bishop, and he couldn't offer any help other than to have the man come in for an interview. The man denied it, so my next step was to call the local sheriff's department. And she was taken into an interview process without me, and they said they couldn't come right out and ask her if she was touched inappropriately, she was just shown a doll. And she didn't understand what they were doing so she didn't say what happened. I hope the process has changed since the late 80's early 90's.

Anyway, nothing happened to the guy. It was a difficult situation because his sister and her husband were our friends and we had gone on double dates. 

Not saying my bishop did anything wrong, he did all he could, but thinking if you had a bishop tell you not to go to police that could be a problem. But he had not, but this man wasn't really active or maybe it could have been a possibility. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Tacenda

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

And IMO, if someone is abused they should go to the law before the law firm.

In my case, years ago, my three year old was mature enough to tell me the neighbor man who had a son her age and my daughter played at their house (I was a naive mom and will feel guilt for the rest of my life) was at their home and he apparently put her on the counter and had her reach for candy and he touched her on her private parts. I was in the middle of loading the dishwasher when she told me, you know how you remember exactly where you are or doing when hearing shocking news or so forth? And my first call wasn't to the law force, it was to my bishop, this man's bishop, and he couldn't offer any other help than to have the man come in for an interview. The man denied it, so my next step was to call the local sheriff's department. And she was taken into an interview process without me, and they said they cannot come right out and ask her if she was touched inappropriately, she was just shown a doll. And she didn't understand what they were doing so she didn't say what happened. I hope the process has changed since the late 80's early 90's.

Anyway nothing happened to the guy. It was a difficult situation because his sister and her husband were our friends and we had gone on double dates. 

Not saying my bishop did anything wrong, he did all he could, but thinking if you had a bishop tell you not to go to police that could be a problem. But he had not, but this man wasn't really active or maybe it could have been a possiblity. 

Yes, in that situation, they can’t do much. I had situation of harassment. Proved it was from a guy in my ward. Bishop interviewed him. He denied it. Many families have been harassed by this guy. I laid out all the evidence. The Bishop did not confront him with the actual evidence and let him deny it. Lets him speak, pray and teach knowing what he’s done. It’s an open secret in leadership this guy is a creep but they don’t warn the young move ins. It’s between adults he said after a call to Salt Lake. He has a fake account on Facebook and Snapchat. Texts and contacts teen girls in the ward. Harasses from spoofed numbers. Has a complete double life.  He’s a ward missionary and converts, then drives away the new members. I don’t understand why it is allowed to continue.
 

We confronted him and unless he does anything else to us, legally we can’t do anything. He threatened to go to the authorities if we talk to him again. We told him we welcome an investigation. We can’t confront or speak to him again or we could get charged. 

[rongo]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In my case, years ago, my three year old was mature enough to tell me the neighbor man, who had a son her age and my daughter played at their house (I was a naive mom and will feel guilt for the rest of my life) was at their home and he apparently put her on the counter and had her reach for candy and he touched her on her private parts. I was in the middle of loading the dishwasher when she told me, you know how you remember exactly where you are or doing when hearing shocking news or so forth? And my first call wasn't to the law force, it was to my bishop, this man's bishop, and he couldn't offer any help other than to have the man come in for an interview. The man denied it, so my next step was to call the local sheriff's department. And she was taken into an interview process without me, and they said they couldn't come right out and ask her if she was touched inappropriately, she was just shown a doll. And she didn't understand what they were doing so she didn't say what happened.

Forensic interviews with small children are tough. There was a young man who moved out of our ward before my time, but returned (not to our ward) and was living with friends. He confessed to having molested two little girls, and more shoes dropped and the number of known victim families swelled to five --- four of them formerly from the ward. The forensic interviews with the little girls weren't satisfactory, but he had apologized to at least two of the couples in person, and he had a long texting thread with one of the mothers confessing and telling how sorry he was. The county prosecutor ultimately refused to press charges --- mainly because they didn't have victim/witness testimony. I was stunned --- they had the texts to the mother (one father surreptitiously recorded a confession from him, which was probably not admissible). He did lawyer up, and the claim was that the texts were just dumb, immature kid stuff --- formally, he denied the charges. Ultimately, without victim/witness testimony, they are very leery of going to trial. In my unprofessional opinion, I wish they had taken their chances with a jury, on the strength of the texted confession. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by rongo

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Including ombudsmen, yes?

 

Yes, including ombudsmen.  But from my perspective, their purpose would not be to remove fallibility from the equation.  It would be to help remove bias (on both sides) and offer support.  Someone farther back from the issue can often understand where both sides are coming from in ways that the involved cannot.  

Quote

 

Also, one of the things that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around with such a position, is where would this fall with respect to ecclesiastical authority?

Say, for example, you have got an EQP and RSP who participated in an affair. The EQP confesses to his Bishop / SP and claims that everything was consensual. The RSP, however, contacts the ombudsmen office and reports that she was actually coerced by the EQP, is now traumatized, and doesn't want to talk about the matter with the Bishop or anyone else right now because it is just too traumatizing to do so.

How is the Bishop supposed to determine whether or not the RSP ought to be subject to church discipline?

 

Well, how would he determine whether or not the RSP ought to be subject to church discipline right now under our current procedures if she told the stake RS president this rather than an ombudsman?   

The lack of an official third party helping the RS president doesn't make this scenario any less hard for the bishop.  

Quote

Does he just have to trust whatever the ombudsman says without ever talking with the RSP directly?

I guess that would depend on what authority and responsibilities the prophet gave them. 

Quote

What if the Bishop is skeptical (for cause or perhaps even without cause) that the RSP was truly coerced and doesn't want to sign her temple recommend without further information. Would the ombudsman be empowered to sign the recommend in lieu of the Bishop? In lieu of the Stake President?

That would be the prophet's call if such a calling was created.  It's not like an ombudsman is going to suddenly spring up out of the grass with no oversight or authority from the quorum of the 12, and run amok because they/the bishop/stake president have no idea where they fit into the "chain of command" or what authority they have. 

And it's not like we have to figure that all out either before the idea is plausible.  That would definitely be above our pay grade.

Speaking for myself though, he wouldn't have the authority to override the bishop or stake president on his own.

Quote

I don't know. It just seems like this could all get very messy.

It already is very messy.  I don't see how support for members in some difficult situations is going to make it more messy.

[rodheadlee]

16 hours ago, Rain said:

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.

I would not make any of it public. I regret sharing myNDE with the board.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Yes, in that situation, they can’t do much. I had situation of harassment. Proved it was from a guy in my ward. Bishop interviewed him. He denied it. Many families have been harassed by this guy. I laid out all the evidence. The Bishop did not confront him with the actual evidence and let him deny it. Lets him speak, pray and teach knowing what he’s done. It’s an open secret in leadership this guy is a creep but they don’t warn the young move ins. It’s between adults he said after a call to Salt Lake. He has a fake account on Facebook and Snapchat. Texts and contacts teen girls in the ward. Harasses from spoofed numbers. Has a complete double life.  He’s a ward missionary and converts, then drives away the new members. I don’t understand why it is allowed to continue.
 

We confronted him and unless he does anything else to us, legally we can’t do anything. He threatened to go to the authorities if we talk to him again. We told him we welcome an investigation. We can’t confront or speak to him again or we could get charged. 

This is horrible. And an example of situations where church leaders have more influence than law enforcement.