Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

AP Story about Abuse


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I do think differently about the idea that a bishop needs to be absolutely positive that the abuse occurred when a victim comes in to get help from the bishop and tells on someone. There's a training recording with Pres Oaks awhile back that I heard on a podcast this morning with him stating that bishops need to be very careful to report it and must be absolutely certain there was abuse, it felt like he placed less emphasis on the victims. But aren't we as a society told to report if we suspect it going on and then let authorities, social workers figure out if it's 100% the case? His statement is wrong, IMO, because it allows so many cases to fall through the cracks. I know of stories with the victims being told to just let it go, the West Virginia case has a guy that before his mission he abused little girls, on his mission he abused little girls, and when he came home he abused little girls, or maybe it was boys too. The leaders knew and nothing happened. This story I heard on the same podcast.

Do you have a link? I would like the original source. I don’t really trust the interpretation of others. 
 

A case. What if something happened to a child by an older child a decade ago. The victim tells a leader but does not want authorities involved…just help spiritually. There is no evidence. Do you put this victim in this situation into a law enforcement interview they don’t want? 
 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I read hand written high school student essays for a living :) 

What is the 250 million referring to? Is that a settlement amount or something?

It's referencing the BSA sex abuse scandal and settlement and the Church's financial portion of it (which is under recent scrutiny).

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-walk-back-250-mln-abuse-settlement-with-mormon-church-2022-08-15/

Edited by Nofear
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think so? The church’s recent statement says that when it has discretion, it only reports abuse in cases only where it is “known”  that “a child is in imminent danger.” So past abuse, or suspicions of abuse that fail to meet “known” and “imminent” are not reported if I am reading correctly. 

Yeah, that language is a little strange and I think the church should improve it.  But it could be related to how the different laws are structured.  For instance, Utah says "has reason to believe that a child is, or has been" and Arizona says "reasonably believes that a minor is or has been".  So those, I think are fairly simple.

Colorado has "has reasonable cause to know or suspect that a child has been subjected" but their clergy-penitent privilege is different:

Quote

(aa)(I) Clergy member.

(II) The provisions of this paragraph (aa) shall not apply to a person who acquires reasonable cause to know or suspect that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect during a communication about which the person may not be examined as a witness pursuant to section 13-90-107(1)(c), C.R.S ., unless the person also acquires such reasonable cause from a source other than such a communication.

(III) For purposes of this paragraph (aa), unless the context otherwise requires, “clergy member” means a priest, rabbi, duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church, member of a religious order, or recognized leader of any religious body.

And 13-90-107(1)(c) says:

Quote

(c) A clergy member, minister, priest, or rabbi shall not be examined without both his or her consent and also the consent of the person making the confidential communication as to any confidential communication made to him or her in his or her professional capacity in the course of discipline expected by the religious body to which he or she belongs.

So, unlike Utah and Arizona, if the victim comes to the bishop and says that abuse happened, the bishop is not a mandatory report.  (unless I'm reading it wrong)

I haven't looked at all 50 state laws but there's probably other differences that just make it difficult to have a "one-size fits all" policy.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Do you have a link? I would like the original source. I don’t really trust the interpretation of others. 

Here's a kutv article - https://kutv.com/news/local/several-virginia-families-suing-lds-church-over-alleged-cover-up-of-child-sexual-abuse

I can find others.  I had read up on it because it is actually one of the main sources for the AP article.  The AP article talks a lot about the helpline and a trove of documents that someone leaked.  All of that comes from the West Virginia case, not the Bisbee case.

The case in West Virginia is actually helpful for the helpline.  The only known instance where the helpline was called, they were told to report.  But unfortunately, this was years after the abuse occurred and while the abuser was on a mission.  It is almost definite that his parents knew about it.  They deny it but the abuser had been convicted back in Utah when they were living there of sexual assault of a girl his age.  After they moved to West Virginia, the mother became the Relief Society president and would offer her son (the abuser) as a potential babysitter to other women in the ward.  She never told anyone of the conviction back in Utah.  The bishop probably knew of it (this is a little murkier).  At least one parent told the bishop that her child (<5 years old) had been abused and the bishop seems to have ignored it (and didn't call the helpline).  After the abuser left on his mission, another child told his mom.  She tried to contact her bishop but couldn't and reached a counselor instead.  The counselor told her to call the police and he called the helpline who told him to call the police.

After the abuser came home, the family (and bishop?) seems to have tried to hide him from the police.  He was finally caught and put in jail.

I hadn't read of him abusing children on his mission or after his mission, though.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I can understand the level of anger that leads to this type of behavior. *I do not think that The behavior of vandalism is ever justified*.

But I think I do understand the anger that would lead to this action against churches. Sexual abuse is deeply personal and when it’s tied to a deeply personal belief such as religion is, that can really mess you up. There are a lot of people who are deeply affected by this story in my tiny corner of the world, and some of my friends who have never asked questions are suddenly shaken.

I completely understand how upset people are. I think most people deal with the hurt and anger without vandalizing churches.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Do you have a link? I would like the original source. I don’t really trust the interpretation of others. 

Here's another source - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wv-supreme-court-of-appeals/1864900.html

That is the appeals decision after the court judge ruled in favor of the church.  The appeals court goes over a lot of the conflicting evidence and finally rules that the court judge erred in ignoring the evidence.  So it is a pretty good run down of the various pieces of conflicting evidence for both sides.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, webbles said:

Here's another source - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wv-supreme-court-of-appeals/1864900.html

That is the appeals decision after the court judge ruled in favor of the church.  The appeals court goes over a lot of the conflicting evidence and finally rules that the court judge erred in ignoring the evidence.  So it is a pretty good run down of the various pieces of conflicting evidence for both sides.

I should have been more clear. I was wanting President Oaks training session. 
 

These are great resources for the cases. I find it ironic the church is getting sued in Oregon for reporting abuse. 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Stormin&#x27; Mormon said:

I haven't been following this story closely, despite the fact that I live only a few hours from where it all went down.  And while I don't make any excuses for the Church where its policy directives suffered some sort of breakdown, I don't understand the anger that is directed at the institutional church.  This is FAR from the Standard Church Sex Scandal (tm) that pops up in the news from time to time.

Compared to the SCSS, this case does NOT have:

  1. A priest or other high church leader accused of abuse;
  2. The accused using their position or acting in the color of their office to perpetuate the abuse; or
  3. The church taking active measures to cover up the abuse, downplay the abuse, or make it more difficult for law enforcement to intervene. 

So, yes, the story is bad.  The abuse was terrible.  There was some sort of breakdown in the way things were SUPPOSED to happen with the hotline and reporting and so forth.  But the level of anger, disgust, or disillusionment directed at the institutional church just does not seem justified to me.  At worst, the Church was negligent; but there's no case to be made that it was complicit. 

There is not an FBI investigation like the Southern Baptist’s. 

But then the FBI didn’t act on abuse allegations themselves in the case of the gymnasts. That led to many more cases of abuse. 
 

 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I should have been more clear. I was wanting President Oaks training session. 
 

These are great resources for the cases. I find it ironic the church is getting sued in Oregon for reporting abuse. 

That West Virginia case is a horrific story. 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I should have been more clear. I was wanting President Oaks training session. 
 

These are great resources for the cases. I find it ironic the church is getting sued in Oregon for reporting abuse. 

Ah, I think Tacenda was referencing this video:

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Do you have a link? I would like the original source. I don’t really trust the interpretation of others. 
 

A case. What if something happened to a child by an older child a decade ago. The victim tells a leader but does not want authorities involved…just help spiritually. There is no evidence. Do you put this victim in this situation into a law enforcement interview they don’t want? 
 

 

I don't have the link, but will try to find it. All I can do is tell you the time stamp and share the podcast I listened to. 

About the case you shared, that is so tough, I don't know that I would or could, but I think the authorities would hopefully not publicize it and find out if it was an only case and the older child didn't go on to abuse others. I do want to believe that an older child definitely can make mistakes in their life and can certainly change hopefully. I know children play doctor, or back in the day they called it that. I'd really need more details to comment and have no training at all.

ETA: looks like webbles had it, thanks webbles! 

Tell me what you think, maybe it's no biggie.  

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't have the link, but will try to find it. All I can do is tell you the time stamp and share the podcast I listened to. 

About the case you shared, that is so tough, I don't know that I would or could, but I think the authorities would hopefully not publicize it and find out if it was an only case and the older child didn't go on to abuse others. I do want to believe that an older child definitely can make mistakes in their life and can certainly change hopefully. I know children play doctor, or back in the day they called it that. I'd really need more details to comment and have no training at all.

ETA: looks like webbles had it, thanks webbles! 

Tell me what you think, maybe it's no biggie.  

Did you watch the entire training? Did your podcast play the entire training? 
 

Do you feel the training was accurately portrayed in the podcast?

I find your description of the training inaccurate.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, webbles said:

Ah, I think Tacenda was referencing this video:

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng

Here's the talk that the training video used by Richard G. Scott, note the bold, sounds awful if you ask me. I listened to the whole talk and the bold is still so wrong and awful even after putting it in context. 

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure. (See D&C 138:1–4.) Forgiveness can be obtained for all involved in abuse. (See A of F 1:3.) Then comes a restoration of self-respect, self-worth, and a renewal of life.

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Did you watch the entire training? Did your podcast play the entire training? 
 

Do you feel the training was accurately portrayed in the podcast?

I find your description of the training inaccurate.

Yes, I listened to the training in full, and the podcast only shared part of it. I didn't mind most of the training. But think the church will most likely need to update it. 

I just posted about Richard G. Scott's talk that they used if you care to see that. I listened to the whole talk and it didn't sit well. It kind of leaves the victim feeling so powerless and that they are to leave it up to the authorities and leaders. What, a victim can't call the police? Not saying they said not to but why isn't that emphasized more? I'm shocked how he makes it out that the abused may need to get help if they didn't do enough to stop the abuse. I'm wondering if he's thinking of a rape case, or thinks that a girl didn't fight off their attacker very well. Not sure, but surely this is not great for the abused to hear. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng

Here's the talk that the training video used, note the bold, sounds awful if you ask me. I listened to the whole talk and the bold is still so wrong and awful even after putting it in context. 

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure. (See D&C 138:1–4.) Forgiveness can be obtained for all involved in abuse. (See A of F 1:3.) Then comes a restoration of self-respect, self-worth, and a renewal of life.

 

That quote was not in the training at all. I agree, the quote leads to victim blaming and is not helpful for the vast majority of victims. It’s also from 1992…I think we have all learned much since 1992. 
 

The clip in the training is all about supporting victims. 
 

Did your podcast focus on the talk or the training. Do you think the training video was accurately portrayed?

I think it has been updated but what part do you object to?

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

That quote was not in the training at all. I agree, the quote leads to victim blaming and is not helpful for the vast majority of victims. It’s also from 1992…I think we have all learned much since 1992. 
 

The clip in the training is all about supporting victims. 
 

Did your podcast focus on the talk or the training. Do you think the training video was accurately portrayed?

I think it has been updated but what part do you object too?

Are you trying to get me to use my allotment of posts? ;) 😁 

No, the podcast didn't use the full training video nor did it even mention Richard G. Scott. I just wanted to listen to see if it was the same talk that was in the bloggernacle years ago, and it was. There was much controversy over it back then. 

Trying to remember specifically but the gist was that the training video favored more help for the perps than the victims. But when I listened to it in full, thanks webbles, it was more balanced and in favor of both getting help. And did condemn many times, the perp. 

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng

Here's the talk that the training video used, note the bold, sounds awful if you ask me. I listened to the whole talk and the bold is still so wrong and awful even after putting it in context. 

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure. (See D&C 138:1–4.) Forgiveness can be obtained for all involved in abuse. (See A of F 1:3.) Then comes a restoration of self-respect, self-worth, and a renewal of life.

I think this counsel may be preferable to endlessly accommodating a person who refuses to help himself or herself.

We can all recognize that substance abuse, particularly involving highly-addictive drugs, can materially diminish an individual's free will.  And while we can certainly acknowledge the terrible consequences of the addictive behavior, at some point the individual needs to step up and take responsibility for his own life, to stop letting the drugs dominate him.  That being the case, we can encourage him to take such steps as will foster self-determination and end the cycle of dependency, learned helplessness, etc.

Perhaps a similar form of encouragement can help victims of abuse.  A recovering drug addict who continues to hang out with other drug addicts who encourage him to relapse is, in so doing, contributing to his own injury, such that "a degree of responsbility" for relapses.  Similarly, "at some point" a DV victim's failure to take care of themselves can also be reasonably characterized as creating "a degree of responsibility."

We need to help victims of every sort.  To break the cycle.  To overcome learned helplessness.  To foster self-reliance and self-determination.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I think this counsel may be preferable to endlessly accommodating a person who refuses to help himself or herself.

We can all recognize that substance abuse, particularly involving highly-addictive drugs, can materially diminish an individual's free will.  And while we can certainly acknowledge the terrible consequences of the addictive behavior, at some point the individual needs to step up and take responsibility for his own life, to stop letting the drugs dominate him.  That being the case, we can encourage him to take such steps as will foster self-determination and end the cycle of dependency, learned helplessness, etc.

Perhaps a similar form of encouragement can help victims of abuse.  A recovering drug addict who continues to hang out with other drug addicts who encourage him to relapse is, in so doing, contributing to his own injury, such that "a degree of responsbility" for relapses.  Similarly, "at some point" a DV victim's failure to take care of themselves can also be reasonably characterized as creating "a degree of responsibility."

We need to help victims of every sort.  To break the cycle.  To overcome learned helplessness.  To foster self-reliance and self-determination.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is pretty bad, smac. People "hang out" with their abusers for all kinds of reasons, and it's ridiculous to say they are failing to take care of themselves. My wife's family has a long history of child sexual abuse, and it went on a lot longer than it should have. But it ended when people felt they could break the cycle. At what point did the continuing contact with abusers constitute a "degree of responsibility"? Sorry, but I don't think you have a frame of reference here, or you wouldn't compare abuse victims to former drug addicts, etc. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think this counsel may be preferable to endlessly accommodating a person who refuses to help himself or herself.

We can all recognize that substance abuse, particularly involving highly-addictive drugs, can materially diminish an individual's free will.  And while we can certainly acknowledge the terrible consequences of the addictive behavior, at some point the individual needs to step up and take responsibility for his own life, to stop letting the drugs dominate him.  That being the case, we can encourage him to take such steps as will foster self-determination and end the cycle of dependency, learned helplessness, etc.

Perhaps a similar form of encouragement can help victims of abuse.  A recovering drug addict who continues to hang out with other drug addicts who encourage him to relapse is, in so doing, contributing to his own injury, such that "a degree of responsbility" for relapses.  Similarly, "at some point" a DV victim's failure to take care of themselves can also be reasonably characterized as creating "a degree of responsibility."

We need to help victims of every sort.  To break the cycle.  To overcome learned helplessness.  To foster self-reliance and self-determination.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is complete nonsense, Spencer. This kind of abuse can and does create fear and decision-making paralysis that you, apparently, cannot imagine. You really shouldn't keep going with this line of reasoning.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...