(3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[pogi]

On 8/9/2022 at 5:22 PM, smac97 said:

Saying the Church "expects Bishops to discuss sexual topics with minors" is a controversial statement.  The Church published "Guidelines for Interviewing Youth" in June 2018.  "Sexual topics" are not in there:

This has since been elaborated on in some detail in section 31.1 of the Handbook.

Nowhere in these resources does the Church state it "expects Bishops to discuss sexual topics with minors."

The 2018 letter only refers bishops to the handbook and to prepare to be guided by the Spirit.  It can hardly be considered guidelines for how to conduct your interviews beyond that.   The handbook that it does refer bishops to does indeed include sexual topics to discuss with minors. 

In section 31.3.1.2 (scroll down in your link), it does list list For the Strength of Youth (which includes "Sexual Purity") as a source of topics to discuss with youth.  It also states:

Quote

When discussing obedience to the commandments, leaders may refer to temple recommend interview questions and the booklet For the Strength of Youth. They ensure that discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation.

Questions about moral cleanliness (aka sexual topics) are indeed expected. 

What seems to be missing is any guidelines or parameters on how to specifically deal with these issues with minors when they come up.  That probably should be addressed. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by pogi

[Snodgrassian]

If the church handbook or the "training" the Bishops receive does not have a decision tree that states "if abuse, then seek professional help," it is not enough. Most Bishops have good intentions, are successful in their professional lives, and probably view themselves as problem solvers. This is a dangerous mentality when it comes to any form of abuse or marriage counseling. I have been there. My Bishop was awesome, and later became stake president, but only after I talked with a therapist did I truly realize how bad the counsel from the Bishop/stake president was. 

I am not saying any of this to bash bishops, but they often deal with REAL life-changing situations, and they are not equipped for it, unless they go through a rigorous education program on mental health, family relationships, sexual health... and then spend years working under the tutelage of trained professionals.  The church has the funds and the network to provide members with better services than the Bishop and Stake President. Let them focus on operations, and leave the trauma to professionals. 

[bsjkki]

36 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

If the church handbook or the "training" the Bishops receive does not have a decision tree that states "if abuse, then seek professional help," it is not enough. Most Bishops have good intentions, are successful in their professional lives, and probably view themselves as problem solvers. This is a dangerous mentality when it comes to any form of abuse or marriage counseling. I have been there. My Bishop was awesome, and later became stake president, but only after I talked with a therapist did I truly realize how bad the counsel from the Bishop/stake president was. 

I am not saying any of this to bash bishops, but they often deal with REAL life-changing situations, and they are not equipped for it, unless they go through a rigorous education program on mental health, family relationships, sexual health... and then spend years working under the tutelage of trained professionals.  The church has the funds and the network to provide members with better services than the Bishop and Stake President. Let them focus on operations, and leave the trauma to professionals. 

Thanks for this. The intent is not nefarious. They don't know what they don't know and are put in a position to deal with things they are not prepared for. They need to know when they are in over their head. I think many times, Bishops are trying to help to the best of their ability. Sadly, what victims often hear, is not what a Bishop means to convey. 

Telling a 16-year-old girl she will have to tell her future husband of her transgression. What is heard, 'no good Mormon boy will ever want me.' 'I am forever tarnished.' 

Edited August 11, 2022 by bsjkki

[Stargazer]

On 8/7/2022 at 4:43 PM, webbles said:

In one of Tacenda's links, it mentioned a case of a member who was excommunicated and then rebaptized without going to law enforcement.  But in that case, the member moved states and there was nothing on the ex-member's file.  So, I think the church needs to somehow ensure that when a person moves, they still can't be rebaptized unless they've also gone to the police.

Theoretically, as an excommunicated (or even disfellowshipped) member you can't be rebaptized without going through an actual process involving a membership council. If such a person were to be rebaptized, since the church does keep a record of members who are exed, or who resign, this would come up when the baptismal record hit SLC. It happened in my ward once (I was the ward clerk, so I was involved), when a member who claimed to have resigned membership was rebaptized after the bishop followed the procedure incorrectly (he was new). We received a communication from SLC when that baptismal record arrived there that told us that this person had not resigned, but had been excommunicated. It turned out that she hadn't known she was excommunicated, because she never showed up for the membership council, and thought that her letter of resignation trumped the council, and the letter advising her of her excommunication got lost in the mail because she had moved without a forwarding address. It was eventually resolved in her favor, and SLC let things be, but it was clear that they knew all about it.

Now, if an excommunicated person were to give false or incorrect identity information at the baptism (e.g. different name), then SLC would not be able to catch it. And that is likely what happened in the case that Tacenda brought up.

[Stargazer]

On 8/7/2022 at 5:17 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So a bishop is like an advocate for the guilty (we are talking about confession here), instead of a judge in Israel, representative of Christ and His church, and an advocate for the voiceless (say the children harmed). Not sure that’s a good look or doctrinally sound, but I’m just a critic so ymmv. 

The bishop is supposed to be looking out for the welfare of both the guilty and the innocent, isn't he? 

One of my sons shoplifted a candy bar once. We found out about it, and marched his sorry self back to the store to confess and pay for the item (which had been eaten). In doing this we were looking out for his welfare, not just the store's. In fact, I didn't care two hoots about the store's welfare, but I cared a lot about his. And teaching him correct principles was paramount. Obviously abuse is not in the same league as shoplifting, so the comparison is somewhat inapt. 

In the case of serious sins such as abuse, of course the bishop must be looking out for the welfare of the victim, but he cannot forget about the welfare of the perpetrator. Or can he?

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

In the case of serious sins such as abuse, of course the bishop must be looking out for the welfare of the victim, but he cannot forget about the welfare of the perpetrator. Or can he?

He cannot (or should not) put the welfare of the perpetrator above that of the victim.  And if there are conflicting actions that must be taken where the welfare of one must be sacrificed for the welfare of the other, helping the victim should be the primary goal.

To many times victims are told to 'forgive' while the perpetrator is coddled "so that they won't go inactive".

[bsjkki]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The bishop is supposed to be looking out for the welfare of both the guilty and the innocent, isn't he? 

One of my sons shoplifted a candy bar once. We found out about it, and marched his sorry self back to the store to confess and pay for the item (which had been eaten). In doing this we were looking out for his welfare, not just the store's. In fact, I didn't care two hoots about the store's welfare, but I cared a lot about his. And teaching him correct principles was paramount. Obviously abuse is not in the same league as shoplifting, so the comparison is somewhat inapt. 

In the case of serious sins such as abuse, of course the bishop must be looking out for the welfare of the victim, but he cannot forget about the welfare of the perpetrator. Or can he?

Not forget but in your scenario the victim is a grocery store and the damage was money. In a child abuse scenario, well, you see the difference. I think in abuse cases, the rights and well-being of a victim come first and their protection. I think you would agree you do care about abuse victims more than the welfare of a perpetrator. Turning them in and stopping them does help them but that does not mean you don't counsel and seek help for them either.

[Stargazer]

On 8/9/2022 at 6:30 PM, bsjkki said:

No, not really. They are not trained in human behavior. Reactions to trauma. They can do great harm. They can easily make the wrong call. Like this Bishop did in this case. And the next Bishop. That shows a lack of training or the wrong training. There are few men on this board I would trust to deal with a teen rape victim. They must have heard from the helpline, they didn’t have to report, so they didn’t. Bad call. I would prefer a policy of unless it is against state law, they must report. 
 

If a wife can report her husband, the Bishops need to get on board and report all abuse. Bishops should understand their default is to be a mandatory reporter. It is the job of experts, to investigate claims.
 

I have a friend who served as a branch president and is now a Bishop. First time lots of training and a responsive SP. 

No training this time around. 

Our stake has frequent bishops training sessions that all bishops, no matter how long they've been in the job, or how many times they've served as bishop, are expected to attend. 

Really odd that your friend isn't getting any training. Stake presidents are supposed to supervise bishops. Supervision implies training. It's not good that it isn't happening in your friend's case.

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He cannot (or should not) put the welfare of the perpetrator above that of the victim.  And if there are conflicting actions that must be taken where the welfare of one must be sacrificed for the welfare of the other, helping the victim should be the primary goal.

I agree entirely. But the post I was responding to seemed to be saying that the perp's welfare should be disregarded.

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To many times victims are told to 'forgive' while the perpetrator is coddled "so that they won't go inactive".

Perhaps so. And perhaps some perps should be driven out of the church. For one thing, the situation that @MorningStar has described in this thread convinces me that the man in the case should definitely be driven out of church. However, if he is driven out of the church, he will doubtless seek out other, less aware communities, who will not know of him and his issues. So maybe keeping him where he is known to be to who he is does a service to others who might suffer if he went elsewhere. Or so I tell myself, anyway. 

 

 

[Stargazer]

29 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Not forget but in your scenario the victim is a grocery store and the damage was money. In a child abuse scenario, well, you see the difference.

Clearly different in degree. I acknowledged that. But the principle still exists that the welfare of the perpetrator is not of no concern. 

29 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think in abuse cases, the rights and well-being of a victim come first and their protection. I think you would agree you do care about abuse victims more than the welfare of a perpetrator. Turning them in and stopping them does help them but that does not mean you don't counsel and seek help for them either.

Exactly.

Though, to be entirely honest, my tendency towards these perpetrators who are not truly repentant and are constantly pushing the boundary towards reoffending is to go all ira dei on them.

DC 42 is very clear about this:

24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.
25 But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive;
26 But if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

In other words, a repeat of this crime is treated as if the person has not repented, and therefore is to be cast out.

[bsjkki]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I agree entirely. But the post I was responding to seemed to be saying that the perp's welfare should be disregarded.

Perhaps so. And perhaps some perps should be driven out of the church. For one thing, the situation that @MorningStar has described in this thread convinces me that the man in the case should definitely be driven out of church. However, if he is driven out of the church, he will doubtless seek out other, less aware communities, who will not know of him and his issues. So maybe keeping him where he is known to be to who he is does a service to others who might suffer if he went elsewhere. Or so I tell myself, anyway. 

 

 

Maybe we can have a special service for people with abuse convictions so they are not around children and unsuspecting families. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Maybe we can have a special service for people with abuse convictions so they are not around children and unsuspecting families. 

Maybe we should be allowed to have them tattooed on their foreheads in red ink.

I'm partly serious about that.

[MorningStar]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I agree entirely. But the post I was responding to seemed to be saying that the perp's welfare should be disregarded.

Perhaps so. And perhaps some perps should be driven out of the church. For one thing, the situation that @MorningStar has described in this thread convinces me that the man in the case should definitely be driven out of church. However, if he is driven out of the church, he will doubtless seek out other, less aware communities, who will not know of him and his issues. So maybe keeping him where he is known to be to who he is does a service to others who might suffer if he went elsewhere. Or so I tell myself, anyway. 

 

 

That thought has crossed my mind too. If he and his wife moved, they would have a whole new ward that mostly knows nothing until someone googles. I had already complained plenty before my bishop apologized on his own that the man showed up to ward choir rehearsal when it was held at someone's house. I didn't know what his boundaries were and that he wasn't allowed to do that. It's been years of leaders telling him, "Don't do that. Don't do that." If he went to sex offender treatment, he should dang well know that he doesn't get to sit by ANY children even though he's only attracted to girls. Someone in the bishopric told the bishop that he had shown up there (I think they attended?) and rather than tell him to leave, it was an hour of anxiety for me because I'm the pianist. He has some kind of degree in conducting and kept approaching my son to give him tips (my son was conducting). A very awkward position and I was so mad to learn that he "forgot" he wasn't supposed to be there. For real? And his wife didn't help him "remember?" I swear he's testing for weak spots in the armor. 

[MorningStar]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Maybe we should be allowed to have them tattooed on their foreheads in red ink.

I'm partly serious about that.

Maybe a pervert lounge instead of a mother's lounge. But the diapers go in the pervert lounge as punishment.

[MorningStar]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

He cannot (or should not) put the welfare of the perpetrator above that of the victim.  And if there are conflicting actions that must be taken where the welfare of one must be sacrificed for the welfare of the other, helping the victim should be the primary goal.

To many times victims are told to 'forgive' while the perpetrator is coddled "so that they won't go inactive".

My old bishop hinted at that. "It's amazing that he and his wife still go to church..." It's amazing that anyone who deals with them still goes to church. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

43 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

I swear he's testing for weak spots in the armor. 

This is precisely what he's doing.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, MorningStar said:

That thought has crossed my mind too. If he and his wife moved, they would have a whole new ward that mostly knows nothing until someone googles. I had already complained plenty before my bishop apologized on his own that the man showed up to ward choir rehearsal when it was held at someone's house. I didn't know what his boundaries were and that he wasn't allowed to do that. It's been years of leaders telling him, "Don't do that. Don't do that." If he went to sex offender treatment, he should dang well know that he doesn't get to sit by ANY children even though he's only attracted to girls. Someone in the bishopric told the bishop that he had shown up there (I think they attended?) and rather than tell him to leave, it was an hour of anxiety for me because I'm the pianist. He has some kind of degree in conducting and kept approaching my son to give him tips (my son was conducting). A very awkward position and I was so mad to learn that he "forgot" he wasn't supposed to be there. For real? And his wife didn't help him "remember?" I swear he's testing for weak spots in the armor. 

I look back often with regret that I didn't face the neighbor guy that touched my daughter inappropriately. I was too scared. I went to the bishop and also reported it to law enforcement and at the time they had to carefully interview my youngster, 3 yrs. old, with dolls. And couldn't outright ask her if she was touched in appropriately. I remember exactly the moment she told me while loading the dishwasher, she told me that so and so's daddy touched her in her bum while he had her get candy up in the cupboard from the counter, not in those exact words but close. This was back in the early 90's and I was so young and dumb about things like this. I still can't believe that at her age she was able to tell me, until now that I tend my granddaughter who is two and 3/4, talks fluently. And then I know it's possible after thinking I may have heard wrong and how crazy that is that a 3 year old is able to do that. 

Why I'm telling you this is because I wonder if people face him and tell him right to his face, I wonder what would happen. I know it's scary, and maybe it's happened by now. But it just reminded me how afraid I was and now regret it. I do remember my husband throwing rocks at the trailer, his way of getting the frustrations out, we lived in a trailer park for 4 years saving up to build a home. Another hard part was that we were friends with this guy's sister and her husband at the time. So I felt bad reporting her brother, but worried about him abusing others. My daughter and his son played and I naively made the mistake of allowing her to play at their house, big mistake. I guess his wife was most likely at school trying to get her cosmetology license. 

 

[MustardSeed]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I look back often with regret that I didn't face the neighbor guy that touched my daughter inappropriately. I was too scared. I went to the bishop and also reported it to law enforcement and at the time they had to carefully interview my youngster, 3 yrs. old, with dolls. And couldn't outright ask her if she was touched in appropriately. I remember exactly the moment she told me while loading the dishwasher, she told me that so and so's daddy touched her in her bum while he had her get candy up in the cupboard from the counter, not in those exact words but close. This was back in the early 90's and I was so young and dumb about things like this. I still can't believe that at her age she was able to tell me, until now that I tend my granddaughter who is two and 3/4, talks fluently. And then I know it's possible after thinking I may have heard wrong and how crazy that is that a 3 year old is able to do that. 

Why I'm telling you this is because I wonder if people face him and tell him right to his face, I wonder what would happen. I know it's scary, and maybe it's happened by now. But it just reminded me how afraid I was and now regret it. I do remember my husband throwing rocks at the trailer, his way of getting the frustrations out, we lived in a trailer park for 4 years saving up to build a home. Another hard part was that we were friends with this guy's sister and her husband at the time. So I felt bad reporting her brother, but worried about him abusing others. My daughter and his son played and I naively made the mistake of allowing her to play at their house, big mistake. I guess his wife was most likely at school trying to get her cosmetology license. 

 

It’s not too late to talk to her, assuming you haven’t 🥹🥰

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s not too late to talk to her, assuming you haven’t 🥹🥰

To his sister? I hadn't thought of doing that currently and should have back then, I think people like me are probably not helping things when we're afraid to speak up. I'm disappointed in myself, and I'm probably not alone and older people around my age remember back and not doing enough.

[gtaggart]

On 8/9/2022 at 9:37 AM, smac97 said:

I am curious about this characterization, in a few different ways:

1. A Strange Narrative: It seems like the narrative is that the helpline attorneys are discouraging/prohibiting bishops from reporting allegations of abuse, which if so would increase exposure to liability (for failure to report).  And then there's the significant damage done to the Church's reputation by such a scheme.  Given such increased risks as to both legal liability and reputational harm, how does this "shield{ing} the church from legal liability" thing work? 

2. Questionable Inferences: The narrative also seems a bit odd given the inference of depravity it carries.  Daniel C. Peterson put it well:

The Brethren are decent men.  Family men.  Moreover, they are fairly intelligent, well-educated and well-informed.  The narrative, however, more or less requires us to infer that these men are both depraved (they sanction sacrificing the welfare of abuse victims in order to - somehow - "shield the church from legal liability"), and stupid (they are not aware of the increased risks, both as to legal liability and reputational harm, arising from a scheme to discourage/prohibit reporting of abuse).

Pres. Oaks graduated cum laude from the University of Chicago Law School, clerked for the Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court, taught law for ten years at the University of Chicago, served on the Utah Supreme Court, and was twice considered for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Elder Christofferson graduated got his JD from Duke University, clerked for a federal judge, and spent years practicing law.  Elder Cook got his JC from Stanford and spent decades as a corporate attorney in San Francisco, as CEO of California Health System, and did pro bono work as a city attorney for 14 years.

These men are, I think, pretty attuned to how the law works, both in the courtroom as in the "real world."  The suggested narrative requires that they are broadly indifferent to the abuse of innocents and/or are grossly incompetent and ignorant of the ramifications of taking the path the narrative suggests.  That seems . . . implausible.

3. Faulty/Hasty Generalization: The narrative being purveyed here is also difficult to square with the Deseret News article by Kate Taylor Lauck, who has had first-hand experience with the helpline (she previously worked as one of the attorneys on it) :

I think the narrative may be a form of a logical fallacy, namely, a "hasty" or "faulty" generalization.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

The narrative seems to be built on this fallacy.  

4. Counter-Anecdote: My personal experiences with the helpline were uniformly positive, though happening under difficult circumstances.  The legal advice was sound and appropriate.  That said, the basis/reasoning for the legal advice was, in some instances, difficult to fully understand.  And I say this as an attorney with 18 years of litigation experience.  I imagine bishops with no training whatsoever might on occasion feel perplexed or confused.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you Smac. Great analysis.

[MorningStar]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

To his sister? I hadn't thought of doing that currently and should have back then, I think people like me are probably not helping things when we're afraid to speak up. I'm disappointed in myself, and I'm probably not alone and older people around my age remember back and not doing enough.

I’m so sorry you’ve carried that burden. Situations like these are so, so difficult. 💔

[smac97]

More information from the Church:

Quote

Church Provides Further Details about the Arizona Abuse Case

Church outlines its feelings on abuse and how a recent Associated Press story got it wrong

For generations, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have spoken in the strongest of terms about the evils of abuse and the need to care for those who are victims or survivors of abuse. From the thundering rebuke of former President Gordon B. Hinckley to the recent words of healing offered by Elder Patrick Kearon of the Presidency of the Seventy, our feelings are clear. We echo those sentiments and teachings today. Our hearts are broken as we learn of any abuse. It cannot be tolerated. It cannot be excused. The Savior Jesus Christ wants us all to do better and be better.

It is important to us that our members and friends understand how deeply we feel about this subject. It is also important that they have accurate information about how we approach this matter.

Church leaders and members are instructed in the Church’s “General Handbook” that their responsibilities related to abuse are as follows:

1. Assure that child sexual abuse is stopped; 
2. Help victims receive care, including from professional counselors; and
3. Comply with whatever reporting is required by law.

Since the Church released its first statement about the Associated Press story, many have wondered about what was incorrect or mischaracterized in their reporting. The information and details below are provided to help media, members and others understand how the Church approaches the topic of child abuse, particularly as it relates to this specific case.

What did the Associated Press story get wrong?

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:

• In late 2011, Paul Adams made a limited confession to his bishop about a single past incident of abuse of one child. The bishop then called the help line, where he was advised about how to fully comply with Arizona’s reporting laws. In compliance with that counsel, from that time forward, the bishop repeatedly tried to intervene and encourage reporting, including by:
  • Counseling Paul Adams to repent and seek professional help;
  • Asking Paul Adams to report (he refused and also refused to give permission to the bishop to make the report);
  • Encouraging Paul Adams's wife, Leizza, to report (she refused and later served time in prison for her role);
  • Encouraging Paul Adams to move out of the home (which he did temporarily);
  • Urging Leizza to seek professional counseling for Paul and their children, which would trigger a mandatory report (they refused).
• In 2013, Adams was excommunicated for his behavior and lost his membership in the Church.
• Prior to and after his limited confession, Paul rarely attended Church or talked to leaders.
• It wasn't until 2017, nearly four years later, that Church leaders learned from media reports the extent of the abuse, that the abuse had continued and that it involved a second victim born after Paul’s excommunication.

The AP story ignores this timeline and sequence of events and implies that all these facts were known by a bishop as early as 2011, a clearly erroneous conclusion. 

The suggestion that the help line is used to “cover up” abuse is completely false.

• The Church's abuse help line has everything to do with protecting children and has nothing to do with cover-up. It has been in existence for more than a quarter of a century. Its purpose is to:
  1. Comply with the various laws of child abuse reporting in all 50 states and the provinces of Canada, ministering to the needs of victims and their families where we can, while reporting abuse consistent with the law.
  2. To encourage victims, family members and perpetrators to seek professional counseling and to report abuse to the authorities themselves.
  3. 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. The help line routinely reports cases of child abuse to authorities. Outside experts who are aware of the Helpline have regularly praised it.
• Even when a report is not required or is even prohibited by law (because the confession is “owned” by the confessor), the help line encourages leaders to pursue ways to ensure these three goals are met.
• Those who serve on the help line are parents and grandparents themselves and include former government child abuse investigators and child abuse prosecutors. Some are even themselves survivors of abuse. The notion that there would be any incentive on their part to cover up child abuse is absurd.

 

Conclusion

We strive to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who spoke powerfully and repeatedly about the precious value of children and condemned those who would mistreat them. These are the ideals that characterize our understanding and approach to the issue of child abuse. What happened to the Adams children in Arizona at the hands of their parents is sickening, heartbreaking and inexcusable.

The Church has issued a strong response because this is a topic where there can be no mincing of words, no hint of apathy, and no tolerance for any suggestion that we are neglectful or not doing enough on the issue of child abuse. It is a matter that strikes at our hearts and is so deeply offensive to everything that we value. 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. We are constantly striving to be better and do more, and we invite others to join us in such efforts.

President Gordon B. Hinckley

“Countless numbers of [children] cry out in fear and loneliness from the evil consequences of moral transgression, neglect, and abuse. I speak plainly, perhaps indelicately. But I know of no other way to make clear a matter about which I feel so strongly. 

“…there is the terrible, inexcusable, and evil phenomenon of physical and sexual abuse.

It is unnecessary. It is unjustified. It is indefensible.

“…there is the terrible, vicious practice of sexual abuse. It is beyond understanding. It is an affront to the decency that ought to exist in every man and woman. It is a violation of that which is sacred and divine. It is destructive in the lives of children. It is reprehensible and worthy of the most severe condemnation.” (President Gordon B. Hinckley; Save the Children, General Conference, October 1994)

Elder Patrick Kearon

“There is no place for any kind of abuse—physical, sexual, emotional, or verbal—in any home, any country, or any culture.

“The abuse was not, is not, and never will be your fault, no matter what the abuser or anyone else may have said to the contrary. When you have been a victim of cruelty, incest, or any other perversion, you are not the one who needs to repent; you are not responsible.

“You are not less worthy or less valuable or less loved as a human being, or as a daughter or son of God, because of what someone else has done to you.

God does not now see, nor has He ever seen, you as someone to be despised. Whatever has happened to you, He is not ashamed of you or disappointed in you. He loves you in a way you have yet to discover. And you will discover it as you trust in His promises and as you learn to believe Him when He says you are “precious in [His] sight.” (Elder Patrick Kearon: We Can be More than Conquerors. General Conference, April 2022)

d

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

More information from the Church:

d

Do you know whether the Associated Press or any other media have responded to this most recent Church statement?

[MustardSeed]

On 8/13/2022 at 12:17 PM, Tacenda said:

To his sister? I hadn't thought of doing that currently and should have back then, I think people like me are probably not helping things when we're afraid to speak up. I'm disappointed in myself, and I'm probably not alone and older people around my age remember back and not doing enough.

I was thinking of your daughter.  

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I was thinking of your daughter.  

Oh, I misunderstood, sorry. I discussed it with my daughter years ago and she doesn't remember any of it, thankfully. I wanted her to know how brave and in tune she was as a three old to tell me what happen, and at that age I'm sure she didn't realize the extent of what happened to her but must have sensed something was terribly wrong. I probably didn't talk very long about it because the guilt was overwhelming that I had let her play with the little boy and his dad without me being there. I think I even let her go to the store with them, that just makes me feel so naive and I hope other parents aren't as bad at seeing the danger of it. I'm glad things are spoken more about how abuse can happen so easily and hopefully the victims continue speak up more.