AP Story about Abuse

[Calm]

 

 

24 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Is an expression of regret, as expressed above, OK or does the word "Apologize" need to be used? They can express regret for what happened but they can't truly apologize for something that was done by another generation of people a hundred years ago.   
On the other hand the Church did issue an apology for what some missionaries recently did in San Luis, Colorado:

 

Both of these are in line with how I see a decent recognition of past wrongs is done by an institution.  And I agree about working to improve things…that is more meaningful and important to me than apologies, but appropriate apologies or public recognition of historical wrongs are good too if part of the whole picture, in part because I believe a recognition of past wrongs means it is more likely that potential similar wrongs will be recognized before they occur and be prevented.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but it's the thread to a discussion of the case and surrounding issues at Times & Seasons.  Please pardon any duplication:

https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2022/08/the-bisbee-case-where-was-the-failure-point/#comments

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but it's the thread to a discussion of the case and surrounding issues at Times & Seasons.  Please pardon any duplication:

https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2022/08/the-bisbee-case-where-was-the-failure-point/#comments

I like the analogy to an anonymous hotline that abusers could call in order to get counseling that would help them stop, maybe even turn themselves in or help potential abusers stop themselves before it happens. I would assume all would approve of such a thing. If one realizes that someone one knows, sitting face to face with them is likely to have more influence for positive change than an anonymous stranger on the phone or online will, then perhaps it becomes easier to see why many of us see a great benefit in allowing a clergy-penitent confidentiality privilege to continue. 

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I would feel very comfortable with apologies being made for what happened in the last 50 years or so.  Maybe 100.  Before that I think we don’t really have the ability to put ourselves in their shoes and understand the influences on their behaviour, so we can at least sort of divide what was most likely a result of personal failings and limitations versus influences outside of people’s control, which just seems weird to apologize for like apologizing for a natural disaster destroying a town rather than apologizing for the lack of preparation to protect the town because people didn’t want higher taxes and politicians didn’t want to look like the bad guy to educate for the need, to push for safety measures if the disaster is foreseeable and it’s practical to do something like retrofit buildings to be earthquake resistant or restore crumbling dikes meant to control floods.  If something is practical unfortunately is subjective.

Did you read the apology of the Kansas City Star?

KC Star editor apologizes for poor coverage of Black news | The Kansas City Star

I'd be interested in your reaction to that apology. 

[pogi]

15 hours ago, webbles said:

My understanding of the helpline is that it does have social workers.  That is where the infamous form comes from (the one that says "do not council bishops to report") as that form was for non-lawyers on the helpline.  Also, the Deseret article from a helpline lawyer (and former sexual abuse victim) says:

Maybe these health professionals are rarely used or maybe people rarely remember them in their interaction with the helpline.

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I was told the people who answer the phone are social workers.  I do not know how in-depth they go in advice before forwarding the call to the legal advisers or if they just take the details of abuse before passing it on.  Seems like they must give some advice if they are told not to advise one thing (reporting) and leaving that to the lawyers to explain.  I am thinking in terms of providing advice of what type and level of help for the victim is advisable.  Maybe someone who has used it could describe in detail their experience, leaving out details of the abuse and victims, etc. of course.

If there are social workers, it seems they are only talking to the bishop.  Clearly their scope and purpose is limited and does not involve direct contact and intervention/treatment with the victim.  If the church wants to prioritize abuse response and help victims to feel more heard, protected, treated, and advocated for, this is not the way to do it - to only work indirectly with the victims through an untrained third party by means of a phone call to a law office that includes legal advise to protect the bishop and church is not a good model.  The optics alone are terrible.  The fact that LDS Family Services exists, demonstrates that the helpline is not intended to serve that purpose.  I still feel strongly that it would be good for the church and its membership to build up these services and work towards becoming a world leader in abuse response.  Protection, advocacy, and healing for victims of abuse should be #1 priority.  The church is not demonstrating that.  At least it doesn't look that way to me.  We can do better. 

 

 

[pogi]

18 hours ago, Analytics said:

A great example of an institution apologizing is the apology of the Kansas City Star apologizing for its past racism. In a Sunday issue that featured a half-dozen in-depth stories about its racist history, the editor of the Kansas City Star said:

Today we are telling the story of a powerful local business that has done wrong. For 140 years, it has been one of the most influential forces in shaping Kansas City and the region. And yet for much of its early history — through sins of both commission and omission — it disenfranchised, ignored and scorned generations of Black Kansas Citians. It reinforced Jim Crow laws and redlining. Decade after early decade it robbed an entire community of opportunity, dignity, justice and recognition.

That business is The Kansas City Star.

Before I say more, I feel it to be my moral obligation to express what is in the hearts and minds of the leadership and staff of an organization that is nearly as old as the city it loves and covers:

We are sorry.

The Kansas City Star prides itself on holding power to account. Today we hold up the mirror to ourselves to see the historic role we have played, through both action and inaction, in shaping and misshaping Kansas City’s landscape. It is time that we own our history. It is well past time for an apology, acknowledging, as we do so, that the sins of our past still reverberate today.

Continue reading here: KC Star editor apologizes for poor coverage of Black news | The Kansas City Star

It really meant a lot to the church that Missouri and Illinois apologized for their historical poor treatment of the church.  It reportedly brought President Hinckley to tears when Illinois apologized.  

Here is some of the impact:

Quote

 

"I know that resolutions are often passed that are not that significant," Utah Gov. Olene Walker said Tuesday while campaigning against seven other candidates going to the state's Republican convention in May.

Still, she added, in a state where 65 percent or more of its 2.4 million people are Mormon, "this is significant to the people of Utah."

 

Quote

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed reported on Wednesday that “the resolution reportedly stunned Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, who was so touched by the apology he ‘had tears in his eyes,’ according to a source.”

Quote

 

Ron Esplin, professor of LDS Church history at Brigham Young University, said the apology is meaningful.

“I think from the point of view of history it is probably not necessary,” he said. “I think most people on both sides have long ago abandoned the passion of the time, but I think it symbolizes a recognition that there were injustices. The official acknowledgment of those injustices may help put salve on wounds that were raw.”

“This just brings closure to that.”

 

Quote

 

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — U.S. Sen. Christopher S. "Kit" Bond, who as Missouri governor in 1976 rescinded the 1838 "extermination order," authorizing the expulsion of Mormons from the state, has been honored by the Mormon History Association for his action 34 years ago.

At the Friday evening awards banquet of its annual conference, the association gave Bond its Thomas L. Kane Award for outstanding service to the Mormon community by a non-Mormon.

"We cannot change history, but we certainly ought to be able to learn from it and where possible acknowledge past mistakes," he said.

https://www.deseret.com/2010/5/31/20118153/former-missouri-governor-honored-for-rescinding-mormon-extermination-order

 

 

President Hinckley called it a "magnanimous gesture".

It should be noted that the language of the resolution was softened from originally asking for "pardon and forgiveness" to acknowledging injustice and deep regret.  The reason for the change in language was -"its not my position to ask pardon and forgiveness of the entire state".  I get that.  Either way it was received and perceived as an apology.  After all, the definition of apology is "a regretful acknowledgment of an offense or failure".

I thin the Church was inspired by such language and used it in their apology for Mountain Meadows.  Many were not happy with the soft language.  But for all intents and purposes, it reads as an apology and was interpreted that way -even by the Deseret News.  Why it is so hard to simply say the word "apologize",  I don't know.  But the intent is the same.  I hope for the day where it becomes easier for the church to express a "regretful acknowledgement of an offense or failure". 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

Did you read the apology of the Kansas City Star?

KC Star editor apologizes for poor coverage of Black news | The Kansas City Star

I'd be interested in your reaction to that apology. 

I am fine if leaders choose to sincerely apologize for past wrongs of their institution…as long as I see active corresponding changes in their current behaviour, either existing before the apology and therefore needing no or few institutional changes or being implemented at the same time as the apology.  I am wary of apologies that are coupled with ‘we are investigating how we can change to be better’ because words are relatively easy while action at an institutional level usually requires investment of effort and money since at the very least time and attention will have to be diverted from something else.  Apologies offered for past wrongs with no intent to improve current behaviour in that area are, imo, worse than nothing at all because it is again taking advantage of someone else for one own’s benefit, in this case to improve the company’s image to increase profits or fundraising or prestige without any corresponding investment themselves, purely political and manipulative iow.  And if one company gets applause for empty words, other companies will likely do the same, ignoring actual change for superficial image boosters, likely resulting in strengthening of damaging habits rather than helping institutional cultures to progress.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Calm

[JAHS]

Mormon lawmaker’s bill would impact all Utah clergy when reporting child abuse

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A Republican state lawmaker in Utah said Friday he plans to introduce legislation that would require clergy to report child abuse to authorities, eliminating the clergy-penitent privilege in a state where The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the predominant religion.

Rep. Phil Lyman’s news release came a week after The Associated Press published an investigative story focusing on cases in Arizona and West Virginia that found the church’s abuse reporting system can be misused by church leaders to divert abuse accusations away from law enforcement and instead to church attorneys who may bury the problem, leaving victims in harm’s way.

Lyman, a member of the faith who himself served six years as a bishop of a local congregation, said he had already been working for months on his legislation but called the AP story “powerful” and an example of the kinds of problems caused by delaying report of the abuse.

“People should be able to go and confess their sins to their bishop without fear of being prosecuted up until when they are confessing something that has affected someone’s else life significantly,” Lyman said. “Right now, you’d hear their confession and you would say, ‘Gosh, I don’t know what to do with this.’ ”

Lyman said his bill isn’t directed solely at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but he reached out to inform the faith on Thursday of his plans. He hadn’t heard back yet as of Friday afternoon but said he expected to have a “meaningful conversation” with church officials about his proposal.

He said he deeply values the repentance and confessional process. But he argued the clergy exception can delay intervention for victims and create uncertainty for clergy members. He would prefer to have clarity so clergy members could tell parishioners at the beginning of confessions that they are required to report abuse.

Church officials didn’t immediately respond to an email Friday seeking comment. The faith said in a statement issued one day after the AP story was published that the piece “seriously mischaracterized” the reporting systems and that a help line that local leaders are supposed to call to report abuse focuses on helping victims.

William Maledon, an attorney representing bishops and the church in a lawsuit filed by children who say they were abused in Arizona, told the AP last month that the bishops were not required to report the abuse.

Arizona and Utah are among more than 20 states with similar laws that give reporting exceptions to clergy who receive information about child neglect or sexual abuse during spiritual confessions.

Lyman already has discussed the legislation with Democratic Rep. Angela Romero, who introduced a similar proposal in 2020 that didn’t go anywhere in Utah’s statehouse. Romero said she believes a majority of people in Utah — regardless of their faith — would support removing exceptions. Though she still expects some resistance from some religious institutions, her conversations with other lawmakers have given her confidence it will be seriously considered when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

“It’s going to require individuals contacting their elected officials and telling them they want to see the exemption go away,” she said.

The church has its headquarters in Salt Lake City and an estimated two-thirds of the state’s residents and the majority of state legislators belong to the faith.

“The exception for clergy seems to create some subjectivity and some ambiguity,” said Lyman, who is from southeastern Utah. “At best, it creates some delays. And to me it puts clergy in a little bit of an awkward position.”

[webbles]

On 8/10/2022 at 2:37 PM, Tacenda said:

If you've got the time or inclination, what do you think about these cases this lawyer speaks of? I think I listened years ago but need to listen again.

https://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/258-taking-the-mormons-to-court-defending-sexual-abuse-victims-agains-the-lds-church-tim-kosnoff/

I generally don't like podcasts as I prefer reading but I took the time to listen.

The only case he references that gave enough details for me to find was the one dealing with Franklyn Curtis.  Technically, Curtis had died before Kosnoff (the attorney) came on the scene but Curtis was the abuser.  A book had been written about the case called "The Sins of Brother Curtis".  I haven't read that book yet (it is on hold at my library) but I have read a little online about the case.  It appears that Curtis was caught and excommunicated in one state (Pennsylvania) and then he moved to another state (Washington) and got rebaptized.  This happened in 1984 so it isn't very recent.  I'm not even sure the mark on the membership existed in 1984.  Does any one know?  The earliest handbook I tracked down is 1998 and it has annotations.  If the annotations didn't exist in 1984, then it is possible that Curtis was able to start a new life with no one knowing about his former activity.  It does sound like a bishop in Washington might have known or learned about new abuse but it was never reported to legal authorities (not even sure if it was ever reported to church lawyers as this was before the helpline as well).

I do think Kosnoff made a good point, in the podcast, about how the way the church creates relationships between men (through callings, quorums, etc), that it can make it hard for the local male leadership to believe accusations against men.  You can hear him talk about this between 49:15 and 49:50.  Just because someone is a friend, relative, or a "good person" doesn't mean that they can't do bad things. 

He mentioned around 50:40 that before the helpline, the handbook actually instructed leaders to call the police.  I don't think he is correct in that statement.  I found references to a pamphlet that was given to leaders called "Child Abuse: Helps for Ecclesiastical Leaders" published in 1985.  It appears to have been a supplement to the handbook that deals explicitly about child abuse.  I never found an actual copy but I did find some quotes from it.  The below is from https://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume1/part1/v1p1c02.htm and quotes the pamphlet along with some commentary (everything in italics appears to be actual quotes).

Quote

The next longest section, "Reporting Child Abuse" (p. 5), states: "Church officers have a duty to keep any information received in a member’s confession strictly confidential. However, if the member indicates [that] he has violated a civil or criminal law, try to persuade him to clear the matter with civil authorities as a condition of repentance and forgiveness." The next paragraph urges the bishop to "learn the reporting requirements for your area" and the following paragraph specifies, "Local law may require it be reported to civil authorities." it then continues, somewhat confusingly:

    If a disclosure intended to be confidential must be reported under local law, inform the person making the disclosure (in advance if possible) that confidentiality may not be protected because the law requires that you report certain matters to civil authorities.

    Counsel Church members to comply with reporting laws; offer support and assistance in meeting reporting requirements. ... Any required reporting of child abuse should usually be done by the offender or by others having knowledge of the problem.

It is not difficult to imagine that a bishop could read this passage and end up uncertain which scenario he should follow if a perpetrator has confessed to sexually or physically abusing his children: (1) Tell the offender not to tell the bishop of the offense because that bishop is required to report it, (2) Fail to report it because it is a confidential confession but encourage the perpetrator to report it, (3) Interview other family members without directly broaching the topic of abuse to see if a spontaneous description frees the bishop to report and thereby protect family members, or (4) Warn the perpetrator that the bishop will have to report the abuse if he hears about it from anybody else, thereby encouraging the perpetrator to compel silence from other family members.

It sounds like the early pamphlet was not that clear cut about leaders reporting the crime.  And that is probably because state laws of mandatory reporting were still fairly new.  The first mandatory reporting laws were passed in the early 1960s and most states had one by the end of 1960s but these mostly focused on doctors.  In 1974, the US passed a law Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act that provided money to states if they would implement mandatory reporting that covered more things and most states amended their laws.  But each state still had different laws around it.  Some gave specific definitions with specific groups targeted.  Others were more general.  I would say that the helpline was probably a big help in that regards.  Maybe it isn't needed as much anymore because laws have slowly become more uniform.

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

I generally don't like podcasts as I prefer reading but I took the time to listen.

The only case he references that gave enough details for me to find was the one dealing with Franklyn Curtis.  Technically, Curtis had died before Kosnoff (the attorney) came on the scene but Curtis was the abuser.  A book had been written about the case called "The Sins of Brother Curtis".  I haven't read that book yet (it is on hold at my library) but I have read a little online about the case.  It appears that Curtis was caught and excommunicated in one state (Pennsylvania) and then he moved to another state (Washington) and got rebaptized.  This happened in 1984 so it isn't very recent.  I'm not even sure the mark on the membership existed in 1984.  Does any one know?  The earliest handbook I tracked down is 1998 and it has annotations.  If the annotations didn't exist in 1984, then it is possible that Curtis was able to start a new life with no one knowing about his former activity.  It does sound like a bishop in Washington might have known or learned about new abuse but it was never reported to legal authorities (not even sure if it was ever reported to church lawyers as this was before the helpline as well).

I do think Kosnoff made a good point, in the podcast, about how the way the church creates relationships between men (through callings, quorums, etc), that it can make it hard for the local male leadership to believe accusations against men.  You can hear him talk about this between 49:15 and 49:50.  Just because someone is a friend, relative, or a "good person" doesn't mean that they can't do bad things. 

He mentioned around 50:40 that before the helpline, the handbook actually instructed leaders to call the police.  I don't think he is correct in that statement.  I found references to a pamphlet that was given to leaders called "Child Abuse: Helps for Ecclesiastical Leaders" published in 1985.  It appears to have been a supplement to the handbook that deals explicitly about child abuse.  I never found an actual copy but I did find some quotes from it.  The below is from https://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume1/part1/v1p1c02.htm and quotes the pamphlet along with some commentary (everything in italics appears to be actual quotes).

It sounds like the early pamphlet was not that clear cut about leaders reporting the crime.  And that is probably because state laws of mandatory reporting were still fairly new.  The first mandatory reporting laws were passed in the early 1960s and most states had one by the end of 1960s but these mostly focused on doctors.  In 1974, the US passed a law Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act that provided money to states if they would implement mandatory reporting that covered more things and most states amended their laws.  But each state still had different laws around it.  Some gave specific definitions with specific groups targeted.  Others were more general.  I would say that the helpline was probably a big help in that regards.  Maybe it isn't needed as much anymore because laws have slowly become more uniform.

I read the book "The Sins of Brother Curtis" a few years ago, so be prepared to be sick. But wow webbles, you listened to the podcast, and I didn't even fully listen, I feel bad. Your time is precious, but there you are taking that time and you don't like podcasts, thank you. 

Currently in my state of Utah, 2 lawmakers are proposing that clergy must report child abuse. The church hadn't replied back yet at the time of this report. Not sure what will happen, but the AP article spurred it on and it wouldn't be the first time Utah leads out in front if it happens.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-lawmaker-proposing-clergy-be-required-to-report-child-abuse

[webbles]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read the book "The Sins of Brother Curtis" a few years ago, so be prepared to be sick. But wow webbles, you listened to the podcast, and I didn't even fully listen, I feel bad. Your time is precious, but there you are taking that time and you don't like podcasts, thank you. 

Currently in my state of Utah, 2 lawmakers are proposing that clergy must report child abuse. The church hadn't replied back yet at the time of this report. Not sure what will happen, but the AP article spurred it on and it wouldn't be the first time Utah leads out in front if it happens.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-lawmaker-proposing-clergy-be-required-to-report-child-abuse

An interesting thing I learned about the mandatory reporting laws, is that Utah was one of 3 states that were the first to be "universal".  By the 1970s, all (or close to all) states had reporting laws but they generally targeted specific groups (doctors were the most common), but three states said anyone who suspects must report.  Utah was also one of the first ones that tied an actual penalty to failure to report.  It is currently only a misdemeanor.

Another thing I learned is that many states have penalties for false reporting.  It sounds like the state has to prove that the reporter had malicious intent, though a few say that if you report incorrectly X times, you'll be punished.  I could see those penalties as a reason for wanting to really be sure if what you know is abuse (such as through the helpline).

I found a chart of the different privileged communication that is in all the state laws as of 2016.  It comes from https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/v10i2-p3#ncb4a184ab7

Quote

Privileged communication	States
Clergy-Patient	AL, AK, AZ, AR, DE, ID, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MO, MT, ND, OR, PA, SC, UT, VT, VA, WI
Attorney/Advocate-Client	AR, DE, DC, KY, MD, MI, MO, NV, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, TX, WV
Physician-Patient	OH
Psychologist-Client	OR
None Stated/Not Addressed	CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, KS, MN, MS, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, TN, WA, WY
No Privileges	IA, NE, SD

There's a lot more privileges than I expected.  I was also surprised that physician-patient was still allowed in one state.  You'll see that UT only has the clergy-penitent.  The UT privilege is solely limited to the confession of the abuser.  If the clergy learns from anyone else (victim, friend, family, etc), they are a mandatory reporter already.

It sounds like most states had clergy-penitent privilege but the Catholic church scandal in the early 2000s spurred states to remove it.  Only 22 states still have it.

[webbles]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

This happened in 1984 so it isn't very recent.  I'm not even sure the mark on the membership existed in 1984.  Does any one know?  The earliest handbook I tracked down is 1998 and it has annotations.

I was able to track down a General Handbook from 1983, 1985, 1989, and 1998.

In the 1983 and 1985, I can't find any reference to alerting legal authorities.  Nothing about urging the abuser, victim, etc to go to legal authorities.  I also can't find anything in the index about abuse or child abuse.  It does have a "Counseling" section which is identical in both versions and it says:

Quote

Church members who have problems or questions that trouble them should make a diligent effort themselves, including earnest prayer, to find solutions and answers. If they need help, they are to consult freely with their bishops or branch presidents and receive from them the assistance they need. If members call, visit, or write to Church headquarters about intimate personal matters, they deprive themselves of a great blessing.

The Church organization makes a bishop or branch president, who is a spiritual adviser and temporal counselor, accessible to every member. He knows his members intimately and understands the circumstances that cause their problems. These local leaders are, by reason of their ordination or setting apart, entitled to a heavenly endowment of the discernment and inspiration necessary to advise those who seek help. If a bishop or branch president needs assistance, he may go to his stake president, who may, in turn, seek counsel from his Regional Representative.

1983 has a section called "Voluntary Confession" and 1985 has a section called "Voluntary Confession" and "Duty of Confidentiality".  In both of them, they basically say that a confession must be kept confidential.  It can't even be used in a church court unless the confessor allows it.

1989 does start talking about abuse and reporting to authorities.  In the :

Quote

Repentance may include disclosure to government authorities.  If confidential information indicates that a member has violated the law of the land, the bishop should urge him to clear the matter with the appropriate government authorities.  For additional guidance on local laws that govern child abuse, see the booklet Child Abuse: Helps for Ecclesiastical Leaders.

There is also an "Abuse Cruelty" section that says:

Quote

Members who abuse or are cruel to their spouses, children, or other family members violate the laws of both God and man.

Civil laws have been enacted to protect victims and to help offenders and family members obtain needed assistance. (See also "Restitition", p. 10-2.)

Church members who abuse their family members are subject to discipline by the Church. Such members should not be called to positions in the Church and should not be allowed to hold or receive a temple recommend. Every effort should be made to have them seek the counsel of their bishops and, where necessary, receive professional counseling through LDS Social Services or another private or public agency.

Local leaders should refer to the booklet Child Abuse: Helps for Ecclesiastical Leaders for additional information.

1998 says:

Quote

Repentance may include disclosure to government authorities.  If confidential information indicates that a member has violated applicable law, the bishop or stake president should urge him to report the matter to appropriate government authorities.  To obtain guidance on local laws that govern abuse, see the instructions on page 158.

Page 158 has the "Abuse and Cruelty" section which says:

Quote

The Church's position is that abuse cannot be tolerated in any form.  Those who abuse cannot be tolerated in any form.  Those who abuse or are cruel to their spouses, children, other family members, or anyone else violate the laws of God and man.  Such members are subject to Church discipline. They should not be given Church callings and may not have a temple recommend. Even if a person abused a child sexually or physically receives Church discipline and is later restored to full fellowship or readmitted by baptism, leaders should not call the person to any position working with children or youth unless the First Presidency authorizes removal of the annotation on the person's membership record.

In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse. Victims of sexual abuse (including rape) often suffer serious trauma and feelings of guilt. Victims of the evil acts of others are not guilty of sin. Church leaders should be sensitive to such victims and give caring attention to help them overcome the destructive effects of abuse.

Stake presidents and bishops should make every effort to counsel those who have been involved in abuse. Members also may need professional counseling. When appropriate, bishops should contact LDS Social Services to identity resources to provide such counseling in harmony with gospel principles. If the transgressor is an adult who has committed a sexual transgression against a child, the behavior may be very deep-seated and the process of repentance and reformation may be prolonged.

In the United States and Canada, the Church has established a toll-free Help Line to provide guidance to bishops and stake presidents in case of abuse. If one of these leaders becomes aware of physical or sexual abuse involving Church members, or if he believes that a person may have been abused or is at risk of being abused, he should call the Help Line. He will be able to consult with social services, legal, and other specialists who can help answer questions and formulate steps that should be taken. Outside the United States and Canada, stake presidents and bishops should call the Area Presidency for guidance. A bishop also should notify his stake president of instances of abuse.

If confidential information indicates that a member's abusive activities have violated applicable law, the bishop or stake presidents should urge the member to report these activities to the appropriate government authorities. Leaders can obtain information about local reporting requirements through the Help Line. Where reporting is required by law, the leader should encourage the member to secure qualified legal advice.

To avoid implicating the Church in legal maters to which it is not a party, leaders should avoid testifying in civil or criminal cases or other proceedings involving abuse. For specific guidelines, see "Legal Matters," page 151.

For additional information, stake presidents and bishops may refer to the booklet Responding to Abuse: Helps for Ecclesiastical Leaders and the pamphlets Preventing and Responding to Spouse Abuse and Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse.

 

The mandatory reasons to convene a church court has also changed over the years in relation to child abuse.  In 1983 and 1985, charges of incest and if the transgressor poses a serious threat to other church members trigger a church court.  But child abuse is not explicitly mentioned.  In 1989, incest is still a reason along with if the transgressor is a predator or if the transgressor has a pattern of serious transgressions.  In 1998, it explicitly states child abuse.  In addition, the First Presidency approvals for rebaptism also changed.  In 1983, 1985, and 1989, incest required First Presidency approval and in 1998, both incest and child abuse required First Presidency approval.

The annotation system is only mentioned in the 1998 handbook:

Quote

In areas where the First Presidency has given authorization, an annotation may be placed on the record of a member whose conduct has threatened the well-being of other persons or of the Church. An annotation helps the bishop protect Church members and others from such individuals. When a bishop receives an annotated membership record, he should follow the instructions in the annotation.

Church headquarters will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president or bishop:

1. Submits a Report of Church Disciplinary Action showing that the person was disciplined for incest, sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child, plural marriage, an elective transsexual operation, repeated homosexual activities (by adults), or embezzlement of Church funds or property.

2. Submits written notification that the person has been criminally convicted for one of these transgressions.

Church headquarters also will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president and bishop jointly submit written notification that the person has committed one of these transgressions before or after excommunication or name removal. In addition, the stake president and bishop may jointly recommend that a person's membership record be annotated for other conduct that threatens the well-being of other persons or of the Church.

In all cases, annotation of membership records is removed only with First Presidency approval upon request of the stake president.

 

[Calm]

I have asked my not so secret sources if anyone has access to the pamphlet Child Abuse. Maybe we will be fortunate.

[JustAnAustralian]

14 hours ago, webbles said:

It sounds like most states had clergy-penitent privilege but the Catholic church scandal in the early 2000s spurred states to remove it.  Only 22 states still have it.

Is there any data about how much mandatory reporting has actually changed priests' behaviour? Over here when they started bringing it in, some Catholic priests openly said they would ignore it. Didn't notice much about other religious groups though.

 

[webbles]

8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Is there any data about how much mandatory reporting has actually changed priests' behaviour? Over here when they started bringing it in, some Catholic priests openly said they would ignore it. Didn't notice much about other religious groups though.

 

I expect Catholic priests to not report.  The seal of the confession is absolute for Catholics and the priests will be punished for breaking it.  Anglicans and Lutherans also have a seal of confession but it doesn't sound as absolute as Catholics.

In my searches about privileges and mandatory reporting, I came across a lot of papers dealing not just with issues related to priest-penitent privilege but also attorney-client and doctor-patient.  There was quite a bit of discussion on whether making them mandatory reporters was a good thing.  The laws expose a lot of issues that will have to be dealt with in court.

[Duncan]

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case?fbclid=IwAR3fNCUi83I3vQPSLcH2dsBQv2znBdytMlspvA6UF0EZl27eqT6Ff-OxSNE

 

This just in!

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, Duncan said:

This just in!

Thanks. Very strongly worded.

Quote

The AP story has significant flaws in its facts and timeline, which lead to erroneous conclusions.

We are puzzled as to why or how a media source as respected as the Associated Press would make such egregious errors in reporting and editing.

Each of the facts below is contained in public filings in the pending case and is taken from the sworn testimony of Leizza Adams, the mother of the victims. The Associated Press was directed to those filings prior to the publication of their first story, but they chose not to include any of them. Those filings, accessible to and familiar to the Associated Press, are the source for the following facts ...

We will not stand by while others mischaracterize or completely misrepresent the Church’s long-term efforts and commitment. Nor will we tolerate the Associated Press or any other media to make such gross errors on the details of such a tragic and horrific incident as what occurred in Arizona.

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[bsjkki]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks. Very strongly worded.

 

The narrative is more important than facts…these days.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

34 minutes ago, Duncan said:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case?fbclid=IwAR3fNCUi83I3vQPSLcH2dsBQv2znBdytMlspvA6UF0EZl27eqT6Ff-OxSNE

 

This just in!

It sounds like confirmation that they told the bishop not to report. In cases where they have the option reporting only happens when they’ve been told by the accused the abuse is ongoing (in this case the abuser admitted to only once). I wonder why they didn’t just come out and admit that. I wonder if it will change. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[webbles]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case?fbclid=IwAR3fNCUi83I3vQPSLcH2dsBQv2znBdytMlspvA6UF0EZl27eqT6Ff-OxSNE

 

This just in!

Interesting that they are basically saying the reason why the bishop didn't report it was because he only learned about a single event in the past.

Quote

In late 2011, Paul Adams made a limited confession to his bishop about a single past incident of abuse of one child

So, the bishop didn't see Paul as a current abuser.  The bishop and Paul met multiple times, including multiple times with the wife.  I have a hard time believing that the bishop only heard about a single past incident.  But the meetings were mostly about Paul's pornography usage so it could have just been a slip up by Paul and he didn't reveal any more than what he accidentally let out.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, webbles said:

So, the bishop didn't see Paul as a current abuser

It doesn’t say that. It says they tell bishops to report “when it is known” the child is in danger. The bishop could have strongly suspected, but not “known.”

Edited August 18, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[webbles]

I do think that the civil case against the visiting teacher is not going to succeed.  In the original criminal case against Leizza Adams, there is some testimony that sounded like the visiting teacher was aware of the abuse before the arrest but there's other testimony that appears to clarify that she didn't find out until Leizza read her journal and realized that she had heard about the abuse.  Leizza, for some reason, "forgot" that her husband was abusing her children and "forgot" about the meeting with the bishop (the jury didn't believe her).  In the civil case, the plaintiffs received the majority of text messages between Leizza and the visiting teacher during the time and apparently they didn't find anything as they've now requested all text messages.  The judge, about a year ago, ruled that all messages should be turned over and it doesn't seem like that has helped.

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It doesn’t say that. It says they tell bishops to report “when it is known” the child is in danger. The bishop could have strongly suspected, but not “known.”

I was talking about what the newsroom is saying, not what the law says or what the helpline says.  The law actually says

Quote

Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, ...

And you are right that the newsroom says:

Quote

To directly report the abuse to authorities, regardless of legal exemptions from reporting requirements, when it is known that a child is in imminent danger.

It is sounding like the church is trying to "thread the needle" and say that the bishop learned of a single incident that was sometime in the past so he and the helpline felt like the victim wasn't in any immediate danger.  I'm not exactly sure, though, that the bishop learned of a single incident in the past.  Since the abuse seemed to have started around 2010-2011, the past wouldn't have been more than 1 year and I think a child abuse victim should still be considered in imminent danger if it happened that recently by a parent.

Edited August 18, 2022 by webbles

[MustardSeed]

On 8/12/2022 at 7:59 PM, JAHS said:

“People should be able to go and confess their sins to their bishop without fear of being prosecuted up until when they are confessing something that has affected someone’s else life significantly,” Lyman said. “Right now, you’d hear their confession and you would say, ‘Gosh, I don’t know what to do with this.’ ”

This doesn’t work.  Even when it comes to murder, even therapists can’t report that.  

Now, if someone’s FUTURE life is threatened or there is reasonable cause for concern, or a pedophile is exposed to children, everyone SHOULD report. 

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'm not exactly sure, though, that the bishop learned of a single incident in the past.

From Leizza's pre-sentencing trial transcript, the Homeland Security agent who helped catch Paul said (which can be found at https://mormonr.org/qnas/tpo8C/failure_to_report_sexual_abusebisbee_arizona/research#re-XYNbob-Q5GzBc)

Quote

Q. okay. Did the Bishop, aside from actual sexual molestation or assaulting of M-1, did the Bishop have any further detail about what Paul Adams was doing with M- 1?
A. He did. During the counseling session Paul Adams explained to Bishop Herrod that Paul Adams was visually -- he was taking video of M-1 [removed for potential explicitness, read the actual transcript if you want]. He said that he had taken video of this, and he's done it numerous times.

It's the last part in the answer where it makes me think that the bishop knew about more than 1 incident.  But maybe Agent Edwards was talking about Paul's confessed and not what the bishop said.