SBC sex abuse report

jkwilliams · May 24, 2022

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suppose. The same general preparation can be given as to kids interacting with teachers, relatives, and anyone else that may pose a risk.

I think it is almost always unnecessary for the bishop to press this point, or to become adversarial, or to present ultimatums.

I"m not sure there is a "line."

That could work, and I think that's the way is often does work. I think it could also help to read from For the Strength of Youth, with addresses these issues with tact, decorum and restraint.

Would you find that to be unduly "probing" or invasive?

That's an interesting question. Clear instruction from the stake president would also be helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Obviously, we as parents need to teach our children how to protect themselves from predatory adults. It strikes me, however, that with a bishop's interview, one has to assume the subject of a young person's sex life is going to come up. Surely, we can teach our kids boundaries when it comes to adults, but I think priesthood leaders tend to be given a level of trust that others may not have.

Interesting story about FTSOY: I worked on that program as second editor back in the early 90s. Originally, the pamphlet contain nongraphic explanations of specific sins, but it came back from the 12 marked with one apostle's initials, who struck every explanation, saying in essence that defining such things would, as said earlier in the thread, lead to curiosity and experimentation.

Tacenda · May 24, 2022

45 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wonder if for some of these people the reason is because, since they are no longer active or believe, they are having more actual sexual experiences with women so don't need to look at the porn anymore.

No, they are married mostly.

jkwilliams · May 24, 2022

51 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wonder if for some of these people the reason is because, since they are no longer active or believe, they are having more actual sexual experiences with women so don't need to look at the porn anymore.

I've heard from a lot of people that their porn "addiction" centered on a cycle of shame: they'd look at porn, feel intense self-loathing and shame, and then use porn to feel better. Lather, rinse, repeat. Once the shame was gone, the cycle stopped, and porn use declined or ceased. And most of these guys I know are married.

rongo · May 24, 2022

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've heard from a lot of people that their porn "addiction" centered on a cycle of shame: they'd look at porn, feel intense self-loathing and shame, and then use porn to feel better. Lather, rinse, repeat. Once the shame was gone, the cycle stopped, and porn use declined or ceased. And most of these guys I know are married.

Also, in my experience working with people, access to sex isn't a "cure" for problems with pornography and masturbation. The habits, when ingrained, continue and aren't "cured" because there is a different "outlet" for them. They appear to me to entail a complex interplay of psychological and neurochemical things (dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin) and to be a completely different "feedback loop" than normal attraction and arousal.

I've even known a man with a gay porn problem (stemming from abuse when he was a young teen) who is not attracted to men at all. His problem with gay porn was frustrating and baffling to him, precisely because he isn't attracted to men outside of that. They have five children now, including a baby not too long ago.

Edited May 24, 2022 by rongo

Navidad · May 24, 2022

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Just FYI I am not a member of the CRC or any church, but I do appreciate their approach.

I don't think it's novel to attribute human qualities to human institutions. They are extensions of humans, so they will inevitably behave in ways that mimic individual and collective human behaviour. ETA an institution is an example of individual or collective human behaviour.

You are absolutely right; it isn't novel. But since I took a graduate course 100 years ago at the University of Virginia in Organizational Behavior and Development, I have been interested in organizations and institutions. There was a time I wanted to be an organizational psychologist or an organizational anthropologist. So I listen for things like "they (organizations) will inevitably behave in ways . . . " The idea that organizations "behave" is another anthropomorphism. There are those who postulate that organizations are organisms. That may be. I tend to think of them as an inanimate object in the hands of humans. Humans act on them, like when I throw a stone into our river; but they themselves are non-organic objects, so there is no point looking to them to solve problems like abuse or racism. I spent much time at two day diversity or racism conferences where the priority was to study the racism "inherent" in the organization or its structure. The result? Nothing ever changed because at the end of the day, racism wasn't my fault! I am trying right now to figure out what I think about the concept of organizational or institutional racism. I think that makes discussing racism too easy and distant from its real source. Thanks for letting me think more about this. best, Navidad

Edited May 25, 2022 by Navidad

MrShorty · May 24, 2022

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

I wonder if for some of these people the reason is because, since they are no longer active or believe, they are having more actual sexual experiences with women so don't need to look at the porn anymore.

I suspect it is more like what happened to Heber J. Grant when he quit drinking coffee and beer. While he viewed them as "forbidden," he had trouble losing the habit of these drinks. When he decided they were no longer forbidden, but simply something he could choose, his compulsion seemed to stop and he was able to quit drinking them.

Amulek · May 24, 2022

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So when my stake president--going against church policy--wanted to withhold my temple recommend until we abandoned a civil suit, who were we supposed to contact?

I believe I mentioned this in a previous post, but if the Stake President is the problem then you would go to his superior which would be the Area Presidency.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not as if that information is made easily available.

I believe this is, as they say in the programming world, working as intended - otherwise these individuals would be inundated with questions, requests, etc.

For legitimate purposes however, such information can be easily obtained.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And it's certainly not as if there is some normalised process for people having serious issues with their local leaders.

Well, you are straying away from the original issue under discussion now which, if you will recall, was about how to report incidences of sexual abuse by leaders.

It sounds like what you are asking for now is more of a generalized complaint apparatus which would operate outside of the established chain of command. I suppose we could have a discussion about the pros and cons of adding such a feature, but I don't think such a change is necessary in order to accommodate reporting incidences of sexual abuse.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You speak as if it's common knowledge what to do, personally I think that's just naive misunderstanding of how these things happen in real life.

How which things happen in real life?

Meadowchik · May 24, 2022

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I believe I mentioned this in a previous post, but if the Stake President is the problem then you would go to his superior which would be the Area Presidency.

I believe this is, as they say in the programming world, working as intended - otherwise these individuals would be inundated with questions, requests, etc.

For legitimate purposes however, such information can be easily obtained.

Well, you are straying away from the original issue under discussion now which, if you will recall, was about how to report incidences of sexual abuse by leaders.

It sounds like what you are asking for now is more of a generalized complaint apparatus which would operate outside of the established chain of command. I suppose we could have a discussion about the pros and cons of adding such a feature, but I don't think such a change is necessary in order to accommodate reporting incidences of sexual abuse.

How which things happen in real life?

There's no question who is next on the leadership chain. But it's not as if the area presidency is putting its contact info out as a way to invite people to reach out in legitimate situations. To demonstrate this, look at an area presidency on a church website. What publically-available contact info do you find?

I couldn't find mine. And what that tells me, is that even in my situation, trying to contact them would have been considered out of bounds or inappropriate.

I'm only getting more general because we expanded on the topic of abusive leaders. Any type of leadership abuse is analogous and requires similar care, atleast to some extent.

In real life, members who reach out to non-local leaders are typically redirected to their local leaders. As I've said, although you are saying that the logical step is for a member to work up the chain, that's not how the church operates. The church does not facilitate members directly reporting anything above their local leadership.

manol · May 24, 2022

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In real life, members who reach out to non-local leaders are typically redirected to their local leaders. As I've said, although you are saying that the logical step is for a member to work up the chain, that's not how the church operates. The church does not facilitate members directly reporting anything above their local leadership.

The one time I felt the need to circumvent the normal chain of command and contact the area president (thirty years ago), all it took was a phone call to Salt Lake to get his mailing address. I had a modest ward-level calling so I was no bigshot. I mailed the letter on a Monday and by the next Sunday he had already addressed the issue. He later thanked me for bringing the situation to his attention. The issue was not "abuse" in the sense that the word is being used in this thread; it was arguably something much less critical.

I'm not objecting to your suggestions, just relaying an anecdote.

Calm · May 25, 2022

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think while a youth is that age, the church should have them go with their fathers, even if there is more than one child in that age range in the family. Think of the time spent with their father would mean to their relationship and them seeing their father's service ideas! Or ideas they come up with together. I know that we've had father and son home teachers before. It would be the ideal IMO.

My dad took me home teaching with him once. I met people in the ward I never saw at church and in difficult situations and saw my dad helping them. While I felt very awkward as I was quite shy, I think it was a very useful experience for me.

I think seeing your parent as a minister is important in learning to be a minister yourself. I think having sons alternate would be a good idea if one has multiple sons of the right age.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Calm

carbon dioxide · May 25, 2022

Many abuse issues in the Church will go away once we merge our meetings into the Metaverse.

Amulek · May 25, 2022

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There's no question who is next on the leadership chain. But it's not as if the area presidency is putting its contact info out as a way to invite people to reach out in legitimate situations. To demonstrate this, look at an area presidency on a church website. What publically-available contact info do you find?

This information isn't publicly available, but it is all published on the Church Directory of Organizations and Leaders (CDOL). Access to worldwide leadership contact information is restricted to authorized users, but any member can access the directory for the Church Office Building and use that to get whatever information you are looking for if you don't want to go through an intermediary.

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I couldn't find mine.

Then you should have talked to the bishopric member who signed your recommend. He could have looked it up for you.

Or, better yet, don't bother anyone in the bishopric and just ask your ward clerk to provide you with the information.

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And what that tells me, is that even in my situation, trying to contact them would have been considered out of bounds or inappropriate.

I think you're imputing a motive which just isn't there.

It reminds me of the time I was invited to attend a dinner with Arthur Henry King. Something came up and I was worried we were going to be late, so I tried to look up his contact information in the phone book and give him a call, but his number was unlisted. Luckily, we ended up arriving on time after all, so all was well.

Anyway, during the evening I asked him if his number was missing from the phone book because so many people call him up wanting to discuss Shakespeare, literature, etc.? My assumption was that he kept his number unlisted because he valued his privacy.

I remember him laughing and saying something to the effect of, 'If people were calling to talk about Shakespeare, I would have the telephone company install seven lines. No, I don't list my phone number because in the directory my name appears as King, Arthur; and I have found that I receive a distracting number of phone calls from spirited youth (at all hours of the day or night) wishing to speak with King Arthur!'

So no, lack of publicity doesn't mean that any and all contact is considered out of bounds or inappropriate. It's just a filtering mechanism designed to prevent contact about trivial matters.

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm only getting more general because we expanded on the topic of abusive leaders.

If by "we" you mean "you" then yes, "we" expanded the topic.

For the record though, I still don't believe there's any sort of systemic problem with respect to reporting sexual abuse by leaders in the church.

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In real life, members who reach out to non-local leaders are typically redirected to their local leaders.

For certain matters, yes, as they should. Serious matters, such as allegations of sexual assault however are most definitely treated seriously and not typically redirected back to the alleged abuser.

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

As I've said, although you are saying that the logical step is for a member to work up the chain, that's not how the church operates. The church does not facilitate members directly reporting anything above their local leadership.

The church does facilitate it though - just maybe not in the way that you would prefer.

The Nehor · May 25, 2022

Another article:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/may-web-only/southern-baptist-abuse-apocalypse-russell-moore.html

Yikes.

Calm · May 25, 2022

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

think you're imputing a motive which just isn't there.

The problem I see is that while we are frequently told letters, etc will be referred back to our local leaders (SPs), we are rarely told we can and should contact up the line if we have concerns about those local leaders. It is reasonable, imo, in the absence of instruction on a specific issue, to extrapolate from the instruction we do have.

I love having a lay local leadership and hope that never changes. I think there is too much to be gained by having our neighbours who live as we do mostly be our leaders. However, the drawback to that is when issues come up that would be better handled by a professional, we are forced to deal with leader roulette. To balance out lay leadership, I believe a more effective feedback and reporting system should be in place rather than depending on leaders themselves to provide that info. When the Church was smaller, the neighbourhood/family/work grapevines and connections system likely was sufficient. With the much larger and more mobile population, I think a much stronger official communication connection between the membership and upper echelons should be created. And if there is a currently relatively effective one is in place, it needs to be much more visible so those not aware it will think of using it and so trust is easier to establish that there will be someone in addition to God listening if we need it.

Quote

It's just a filtering mechanism designed to prevent contact about trivial matters.

But it is filtering out a number of nontrivial matters in just my experience and given I have been more or less home bound for years and never that social to begin with, so wasn’t in the loop much in my wards, that I have heard of as many as I have…I don’t think it is a matter of just a few good and faithful members who deserve attention falling through the gap.

Quote

For the record though, I still don't believe there's any sort of systemic problem with respect to reporting sexual abuse by leaders in the church.

I agree with this as far as the current setup. But I think there is more likely a systemic problem with respect to reporting treatment by leaders of sexual abuse issues (and likely sexual issues in general with inappropriate questions being asked or information shared) though I don’t know how big it is. I really hope not as big as I think it might be. I have heard of too many victims being treated in ways that increase their trauma, even make it difficult, if not impossible for them to stay connected to the Church.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Calm

Calm · May 25, 2022

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes! And why ask such questions? It’s valid to want to make sure the youth understand what the LoC is exactly, but you don’t have to ask baiting questions to do that.

You just have to tell them. No need to be graphic.

Preferably in a group setting so those who tend to take things too seriously don’t assume they are being told because the bishop believes they have a problem or expects them to.

Calm · May 25, 2022

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And when a youth has admitted to using porn, or an adult, and told not to take the Sacrament, imagine the shame in this. Almost like a scarlet letter "A" pinned to their shirt/dress.

Did you pay attention to who took the sacrament? I have heard this often said, but I wonder if anyone is really watching. I have never actually heard anyone who say they have noticed someone attending their ward not taking it independently of knowing they aren’t (because it is a family member or some other reason). In the few cases I have heard of where people are aware when it is not family, they found out through gossip unfortunately, not because they noticed the person not taking it.

Not that telling everyone that no one actually pays attention to who takes the sacrament besides the Bishop if this is true like I think will stop the shame. We too often assume people see scarlet letters when they are oblivious to such things because we project our shame on to others. People will feel the shame if others look at them or not in most cases.

rongo · May 25, 2022

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did you pay attention to who took the sacrament? I have heard this often said, but I wonder if anyone is really watching.

I didn't take the sacrament twice while serving as a bishop (this actually came up last night while talking to my daughter on her mission, interestingly enough. She was surprised by this). While you might think that this is very noticeable, nobody seems to have. I agree with you that anxiety about people noticing is mostly in the mind of the person worrying about it.

I also think that a great many of us have not taken the sacrament on our own at one time or another, and so most people won't assume the worst even if they do notice that others don't. Most of us have been there.

Meadowchik · May 25, 2022

11 hours ago, manol said:

The one time I felt the need to circumvent the normal chain of command and contact the area president (thirty years ago), all it took was a phone call to Salt Lake to get his mailing address. I had a modest ward-level calling so I was no bigshot. I mailed the letter on a Monday and by the next Sunday he had already addressed the issue. He later thanked me for bringing the situation to his attention. The issue was not "abuse" in the sense that the word is being used in this thread; it was arguably something much less critical.

I'm not objecting to your suggestions, just relaying an anecdote.

Yup, I have heard anecdotes like this over the years.

Meadowchik · May 25, 2022

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

This information isn't publicly available, but it is all published on the Church Directory of Organizations and Leaders (CDOL). Access to worldwide leadership contact information is restricted to authorized users, but any member can access the directory for the Church Office Building and use that to get whatever information you are looking for if you don't want to go through an intermediary.

Then you should have talked to the bishopric member who signed your recommend. He could have looked it up for you.

Or, better yet, don't bother anyone in the bishopric and just ask your ward clerk to provide you with the information.

I think you're imputing a motive which just isn't there.

It reminds me of the time I was invited to attend a dinner with Arthur Henry King. Something came up and I was worried we were going to be late, so I tried to look up his contact information in the phone book and give him a call, but his number was unlisted. Luckily, we ended up arriving on time after all, so all was well.

Anyway, during the evening I asked him if his number was missing from the phone book because so many people call him up wanting to discuss Shakespeare, literature, etc.? My assumption was that he kept his number unlisted because he valued his privacy.

I remember him laughing and saying something to the effect of, 'If people were calling to talk about Shakespeare, I would have the telephone company install seven lines. No, I don't list my phone number because in the directory my name appears as King, Arthur; and I have found that I receive a distracting number of phone calls from spirited youth (at all hours of the day or night) wishing to speak with King Arthur!'

So no, lack of publicity doesn't mean that any and all contact is considered out of bounds or inappropriate. It's just a filtering mechanism designed to prevent contact about trivial matters.

If by "we" you mean "you" then yes, "we" expanded the topic.

For the record though, I still don't believe there's any sort of systemic problem with respect to reporting sexual abuse by leaders in the church.

For certain matters, yes, as they should. Serious matters, such as allegations of sexual assault however are most definitely treated seriously and not typically redirected back to the alleged abuser.

The church does facilitate it though - just maybe not in the way that you would prefer.

Waiting for traumatised people to figure out how to work independently of local leaders and contact them in this way is not facilitating.

You get an easier time reporting a problem with your yogurt these days with the number to report a product defect very frequently being on the box.

The church has millions of members worldwide, an annual operating budget in the billions and an annual tithing surplus in the billions. It has the resources to invite victims of abuse to come forward, and to use a service for example like a hotline dedicated to members, and then use that hotline to *filter* out trivial matters.

Sexual abuse (and other abuse) happens, unfortunately, and the church and its leaders are not immune.

Reporting and disclosing abuse is not a straightforward action to undertake or receive. It can require courage and can also cost the victims dearly, even moreso if the abuser is in a leadership position. Victims need support and help that is visible and obvious and framed as an invitation to safety while also being pragmatically safe.

The process you suggest is certainly not a safe invitation for someone struggling with an abusive local leader.

Tacenda · May 25, 2022

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Did you pay attention to who took the sacrament? I have heard this often said, but I wonder if anyone is really watching. I have never actually heard anyone who say they have noticed someone attending their ward not taking it independently of knowing they aren’t (because it is a family member or some other reason). In the few cases I have heard of where people are aware when it is not family, they found out through gossip unfortunately, not because they noticed the person not taking it.

Not that telling everyone that no one actually pays attention to who takes the sacrament besides the Bishop if this is true like I think will stop the shame. We too often assume people see scarlet letters when they are oblivious to such things because we project our shame on to others. People will feel the shame if others look at them or not in most cases.

Just read others' comments about it. How they felt about what others thought of them. So you may be right the majority of the time people don't notice. But that's not always the case. And I thought the Sacrament was to renew their covenants, start over, so it makes no sense to penalize using the Sacrament of all things. Terrible in fact to do that to someone.

bluebell · May 25, 2022

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just read others' comments about it. How they felt about what others thought of them. So you may be right the majority of the time people don't notice. But that's not always the case. And I thought the Sacrament was to renew their covenants, start over, so it makes no sense to penalize using the Sacrament of all things. Terrible in fact to do that to someone.

The new handbook agrees with you, in general.

Tacenda · May 25, 2022

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The new handbook agrees with you, in general.

Good to know.

Tacenda · May 25, 2022

This pastor spoke about a sin he'd made and stepping down. And this woman ran up to say how he'd sinned against her as a 16 year old. Airing these things is a good way to stop the abuse. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/indiana-pastor-adultery-teen-woman-b2086334.html?amp&fbclid=IwAR0qMdM9ypqt1hEuzTjyrTnNF-iIXO1SzYDMqC1izLBS0roFpaAqZiCHkjU

smac97 · May 25, 2022

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So when my stake president--going against church policy--wanted to withhold my temple recommend until we abandoned a civil suit, who were we supposed to contact?

A few thoughts:

1. The general organization of the Church pretty much goes like this: Individual --> Ward --> Stake --> Area Seventy --> Area Presidency (Seventy) --> Quorum of the Twelve --> First Presidency.

2. Your question seems to be "To whom in the Church's organization is a stake president subordinate?" From Sectoin 5.2 of the Handbook:

Quote

5.2

Area Leadership

The Church is organized into geographic areas covering the entire world. This section summarizes the leadership of the Church in these areas.

5.2.1

Area Presidency

In each area, a General Authority Seventy is assigned by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to serve as the Area President. Two counselors, who are General Authority Seventies or Area Seventies, are assigned to assist the president.

The Area Presidency presides over and counsels with stake and mission presidents in the area. They also support temple presidents and matrons. In counsel with members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the Presidency of the Seventy to whom they report, they determine how to apply general Church policy and direction to meet the needs in their area.

Members of the Area Presidency travel within the assigned area to minister to, teach, and encourage local leaders, missionaries, and Church members. They are assigned by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to preside at stake conferences and other meetings.

5.2.2

Area Seventies

Area Seventies are called by the First Presidency to be special witnesses who bear record of the name of Jesus Christ and teach the gospel in their assigned areas (see Doctrine and Covenants 107:25; 124:139). Working under the direction of the Area Presidency, they assist the Twelve in building up and regulating the Church in their area.

Area Seventies are not called to full-time service. They typically serve for five years. They are usually assigned to serve in the geographical area where they live (see Doctrine and Covenants 107:38, 98). Area Seventies are sustained in general conference.

Each Area Seventy belongs to a quorum of the Seventy. These quorums are organized by geography. As members of these quorums, Area Seventies are presided over by the Presidency of the Seventy.

Area Seventies work and counsel together with local Church leaders to help them fulfill their responsibilities. Area Seventies may be assigned to:

Serve on the area council (see 5.2.3).

Preside at coordinating council meetings (see 5.2.4).

Preside at stake conferences and instruct stake leaders.

Create or reorganize stakes, set apart new stake presidencies, and confer keys on the stake president.

Coordinate area-wide responsibilities, including activities (see 20.3.3), JustServe.org (where it is available), disaster recovery, or other assignments.

Tour missions and instruct mission leaders and missionaries.

Serve as a counselor in the Area Presidency.

Area Seventies preside at all Church meetings they attend within their area unless a General Authority is present. However, they do not preside over the day-to-day work of temple, mission, or stake presidents. These presidents serve under the direction of the Area Presidency.

Sign In

SBC sex abuse report

Recommended Posts

jkwilliams

Tacenda

jkwilliams

rongo

Navidad

MrShorty

Amulek

Meadowchik

manol

Calm

carbon dioxide

Amulek

The Nehor

Calm

Calm

Calm

rongo

Meadowchik

Meadowchik

Tacenda

bluebell

Tacenda

Tacenda

smac97

Area Leadership

Area Presidency

Area Seventies

Area presidency

Area Seventy

Area Seventies

smac97

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse