Elder Kearon on Addressing Sexual Abuse

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To show that it was being published in multiple outlets.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am still curious about my question to you, thanks  

[smac97]

On 1/25/2024 at 1:59 PM, MustardSeed said:

I am still curious about my question to you, thanks  

You said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

An AP investigation found that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ sexual abuse reporting hotline can be misused by its 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.

Wow.  Very misleading.

I don’t follow the intent of your comment.  Do you believe the article is misleading or the church’s behavior as described by the article  is misleading? 

The article is misleading.  The AP is making a value judgment, not reporting "news" when is editorializes with stuff like the hotline being "misused ... {to} divert abuse accusations from law enforcement ... {and instead} to church attorneys who may bury the problem, leaving victims in harm’s way."

Mindreading.  Imputed motives.  Deception by omission.  All sorts of problems here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 28, 2024 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You said:

The article is misleading.  The AP is making a value judgment, not reporting "news" when is editorializes with stuff like the hotline being "misused ... divert abuse accusations from law enforcement ... {and instead} to church attorneys who may bury the problem, leaving victims in harm’s way."

Mindreading.  Imputed motives.  Deception by omission.  All sorts of problems here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would agree. 
thanks 

[MorningStar]

I thought our ward pedophile was done coming to church, but he's back now that we have a later time slot. He's not on the registry anymore and the state doesn't restrict him from doing anything, but couldn't church leaders tell him not to ask ward members about their children? He thinks he's buddies with one of my friends and it just happened again - asking about her kids and their ages. We can still pull up news articles about his arrest, so knowledge about what he did is never going away. Also, his ex DIL told me it never came out that he abused his own children. We're so focused on being peacemakers while guys like him get away with stuff because people are too chicken to say, "Don't you ever talk about my children and you know why." Why are we afraid that people like him are going to leave the church? If people leave because of people like him, it's because "they weren't firmly rooted in the Gospel." If he leaves? It's because we weren't welcoming enough. There comes a point where leaders need to lay down the law and tell him he's not entitled to anything and he WILL NOT cross any boundaries when it comes to children. Either he has a screw loose or he gets satisfaction out of making people uncomfortable. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

he gets satisfaction out of making people uncomfortable. 

I vote for this….it is his way of exerting control, you and others are vulnerable in this area and he knows it and enjoys the game.

Edited January 27, 2024 by Calm

[MorningStar]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I vote for this….it is his way of exerting control, you and others are vulnerable in this area and he knows it and enjoys the game.

That's what I think. My friend is very easy to read - very high anxiety. I swear if I witness it happening, I'm going to say it for her. 

[Stargazer]

FWIW, Ward Radio (a YouTube channel) has a segment about this. I find Ward Radio rather annoying much of the time, but not everyone is like me. So, just for fun...

 

[rpn]

On 1/24/2024 at 1:29 PM, smac97 said:

No mention of how often the Church's policies facilitate the detection and cessation of abuse, or of the ramifications of the Priest-Penitent Privilege, or the substantial flaws - and even counterproductive and harmful effects - of expanding mandatory reporting laws, etc.  The AP has a narrative it wants to advance.

The SL Tribune recently published a story saying essentially that bishops should ignore the priest-penitent privilege and report any confessor to the police.  UT legislature considering a bill that expressly says that ones who do so will not be in trouble with the law.   (Doesn't identify the likely necessary immediate release of any bishop who chooses that, though.)  

These choices are agonizing for bishops, most of whom work hard to support victims and encourage them to report.   As someone who has worked with perps I so much wish the public understood that being able to somewhere confess these sins and have support to stop matters.   Perps can get counseling, but only when they don't acknowledge that they are perps (and know how to describe the therapy they seek, which is a real big if) : therapists are mandatory reporters).   And the kind of counseling that perps are provided can help them stop and never do it again (in many cases it also helps them deal with their own sexual abuse that is how they got started perping).    Of course a fully repentant person would remove themselves from any risk of further harm.  But identified perps are likely to be further abused and mistreated in correctional facilities, where there is little to no change your heart and actions permanently therapy or support.   Perps don't get any of the religious side of repentance in correctional facilities and in many places little to no ecclesiastical support (in some locations where a prison exists, bishops so much don't want to minister to inmates, as to immediately terminate their membership for everyone who identifies themselves as a member when they arrive at prison, so that the ward leaders have no obligations to help/minister**, instead of wrapping their arms around the inmate with support.

Just saying --- huge percentages of perps were perped on first and have existed within that trauma from childhood.  If we want to get rid of this, we need to work on how they got there.  Going to prison so we don't have to deal with them doesn't really reduce risk (except for the time they are there).   I, for one, want a perp to not just repent of what they've done, but also change so they will never do it again, and understand and choose for themselves to set and protect boundaries. 

**This is not always because they are awful/unkind:  many prisons are in rural communities and because they like to hire good people, church members might be a huge percentage of the staff, and no one can afford to show any favoritism.   But removing membership is not always the appropriate thing to do for repentance for whatever they did to end up in prison.   Stakes that include prisons in their midst in the US often have prison chaplain callings whether there are members  assigned there or not.  And, lets face it by the time someone gets to prison generally they haven't been in church for a while.

Edited January 29, 2024 by rpn

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, rpn said:

Quote

No mention of how often the Church's policies facilitate the detection and cessation of abuse, or of the ramifications of the Priest-Penitent Privilege, or the substantial flaws - and even counterproductive and harmful effects - of expanding mandatory reporting laws, etc.  The AP has a narrative it wants to advance.

The SL Tribune recently published a story saying essentially that bishops should ignore the priest-penitent privilege and report any confessor to the police. 

Yes, that's a common response.  Unfortunately, it is one which I think it shortsighted, misguided, and has the potential to be a cure worse than the disease.

You'll never see the Tribune run a story encouraging doctors, therapists or lawyers to ignore the laws governing their privileged communications.

11 minutes ago, rpn said:

UT legislature considering a bill that expressly says that ones who do so will not be in trouble with the law.   (Doesn't identify the likely necessary immediate release of any bishop who chooses that, though.)

What is the bill number?  I'd like to review it.

11 minutes ago, rpn said:

These choices are agonizing for bishops, most of whom work hard to support victims and encourage them to report.

I agree.

11 minutes ago, rpn said:

As someone who has worked with perps I so much wish the public understood that being able to somewhere confess these sins and have support to stop matters.   Perps can get counseling, but only when they don't acknowledge that they are perps (and know how to describe the therapy they seek, which is a real big if) : therapists are mandatory reporters).   And the kind of counseling that perps are provided can help them stop and never do it again (in many cases it also helps them deal with their own sexual abuse that is how they got started perping).    Of course a fully repentant person would remove themselves from any risk of further harm.  But identified perps are likely to be further abused and mistreated in correctional facilities, where there is little to no change your heart and actions permanently therapy or support.   Perps don't get any of the religious side of repentance in correctional facilities and in many places little to no ecclesiastical support (in some locations where a prison exists, bishops so much don't want to minister to inmates, as to immediately terminate their membership for everyone who identifies themselves as a member when they arrive at prison, so that the ward leaders have no obligations to help/minister**, instead of wrapping their arms around the inmate with support.

Good points, these.  Moreover, the "Law of Unintended Consequences" is really in play here (see, e.g., this article).

Thanks,

-Smac