Why the lds help line? NOT to help bishops provide pastoral care, says Smac

[Marcus]

Smac, over at MDD, says more than he realizes:

As for "helping out the parties," that is not really the point of the helpline, which is intended to provide legal guidance, not pastoral.

...Actually, I think the Church would be derelict in its responsibilities in not providing bishops legal assistance via the helpline.

5 hours ago, Teancum said:
"It seems more a legal program designed to protect the church."

I have never understood this line of reasoning.

How is a helpline designed to assist bishops in navigating choppy legal waters regarding abuse claims a bad thing?

Would bishops be better off just guessing about legalities when trying to figure out how they should proceed?

...As for characterizing the helpline has "protect{ing} the church," such "protection" amounts to complying with the law. Why is such protection a bad thing?

...Do you fault a doctor who seeks out legal advice on the complexities of privileged communications?

I suspect hospitals and clinics have attorneys on hand to provide legal guidance comparable to what is meted out via the Church's helpline. Do you therefore characterize these hospitals and clinics as only being out to "protect" themselves (as opposed to, say, complying with often complex legal technicalities in high-stakes situations)?

...Compliance with the law is an important, but not the sole, component of how a bishop addresses allegations of abuse. A natural and foreseeable result of such compliance is that the Church is "protect{ed}," but in my view the Church ought not be faulted for seeking protection of the law by complying with it.

... I did not check my humanity at the door to the bishop's office, but I recognized that allegations of abuse need to be carefully addressed. I was then able to proceed in providing pastoral guidance to the abuser and/or pastoral care to the victim.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75 ... 1210167982

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Also, I find the church abuse hotline really not at all helpful for the bishop calling the line when it comes to helping out the parties in this situation. It seems more a legal program designed to protect the church. At least that was my experience as a bishop and also what I have read at least anecdotally from others.

I have heard at least a half dozen current and former bishops state they found the opposite. It may depend on where you live perhaps or maybe just the lawyer at the other end.

I think this might be arising more as a matter of unrealistic or misplaced expectations. The helpline is intended to provide bishops with guidance on legal matters, not pastoral care, so it doesn't seem right to fault the Church for having a helpline that isn't providing services it was not intended to provide.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac says a lot more than he realizes with his vigorous defense of the lds lawyers. The lds church is not in the business of providing 'pastoral care.' Why? Because the lds corporation is a business (like hospitals protected by attorneys, HIS example). and protecting itself legally is the priority.

His insistence that he could provide adequate pastoral care as an untrained volunteer, after talking to a helpline that does NOT concern itself with pastoral care, was nothing more than the misguided belief that a Hail Mary pass into the stands would win the game. Embarrassing.

Smac supports his argument impeccably. Kirton McConkie might be calling, asking for less help.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I believe Jesus would call a pharisee a pharisee in this case.

- Doc

[Moksha]

Smac would argue that it is not the business of the Corporate Church to provide pastoral care and that a Corporation needs to protect its financial assets above all else.

[Marcus]

Smac would argue that it is not the business of the Corporate Church to provide pastoral care and that a Corporation needs to protect its financial assets above all else.

[msnobody]

Is that Smac we posted alongside years ago? He was nice.

[Gadianton]

Do you therefore characterize these hospitals and clinics as only being out to "protect" themselves (as opposed to, say, complying with often complex legal technicalities in high-stakes situations

Every business needs a legal department, unfortunately. Charities also. The difference is, to me, that the case of a hospital and the case of a Bishop are totally different in that, a hospital actually has the power to help the the patient, and needs a legal department to protect themselves when they fail and things go awry.

In the case of abuse, the Bishop has no power to help the abuser whatsoever, and so the ONLY thing the legal department exists for is to protect the Church, and in turn, protect the abuser.

Does smac or any other apologist disagree with me about my statement that the Bishop has no power to help the abuser whatsoever?

Bishops aren't therapists. They are unlikely to help an abuser stop being an abuser and go on to be an outstanding Saint. Even a skilled therapist is unlikely to succeed here. Of course, the abuser has an incentive to go to the Bishop because he's protected, whereas a therapist is required to report certain kinds of abuse to authorities. So, okay, we could argue that the Bishop might have no skills but the confidentiality at least gives him a chance to help where no other realistic option is available. Sure, there's a remote chance, but I'd bet my life savings that it rarely if ever happens. But supposing it does happen sometimes, such success is a misnomer because Bishops aren't there for rehabilitation, but to facilitate the repentance process.

So hypothetically, even if a bishop helps an abuser stop abusing totally, he's failed to help the abuser repent, because repentance means, in part, apologizing and restitution to the party that has been wronged. So here's a hypothetical question for Smac or MG or any other fanatical believing TBM: Suppose an LDS abuser who has abused 6 members of the ward and 6 non-members in his neighborhood confesses to the Bishop, is it theoretically possible for the abuser to fully repent without turning himself into authorities?

There you have it. The Bishop cannot help without the abuser facing the legal consequences of his actions. It's game over.

Here's the next question for Smac or MG or DCP: If a "court of love" is required to help a person who is found out to be criticizing the Church online, does it stand to reason that the same proceedings are required to help a member who has abused 12 people over the years?

Game over again. As soon as the abuse is revealed, the excommunication proceedings should be underway, so why aren't they? Because it will inevitably lead to too many people finding out and the authorities getting involved. But that's what we want, right? Because the abuser can't repent without paying the price for what he's done.

The bottom line is that ecclesiastical confidentiality cannot possibly work in Mormonism even on Mormonism's own terms. The only theoretical option is to turn yourself in immediately or face excommunication proceedings. But supposing the excommunication happens without authorities getting tipped off, then that just complicates things when years later the secret excommunication is found out and the abuser has gone on to abuse 6 more ward members. Now it's a scandal plus a gray area for legal liability. What it comes down to, is that the Church has only a single way forward: institute a new policy that says don't confess uncovered crimes to the bishop without first turning yourself into the authorities.

The longer and drawn out the interaction with the Bishop is, the bigger the scandal when it finally gets revealed. From beginning to end, the Church has only one option: protect itself. It doesn't help the abuser because in Mormonism an abuser can't repent without people finding out via both a church court and the police. And it certainly doesn't help the victims by keeping it covered up.

And so no, the situation is totally different than a hospital, where the hospital actually holds the power to heal the patient. The Bishop cannot help the abuser through the repentance process, only cover up the evil deeds to prevent blowback on the Church itself.

[Dr. Shades]

Although, according to Smac, helping the bishop navigate legal requirements may be the hotline’s ostensible or “on paper” purpose, I can’t recall any instances of the attorney on the other end of the line doing anything other than instructing the bishop not to tell anyone and to convince the kid to not tell anyone.

If anyone has ever read anything different, I’ll happily stand corrected.

[Res Ipsa]

If I wanted advice on how to provide pastoral care, the last place I would call would be a law firm.

[Fence Sitter]

SMAC's defenses do more damage to his "clients' than any judicial ruling ever would do.

[Marcus]

If I recall correctly, it wasn't known at first that the helpline would eventually connect one with a lawyer. Also, If I recall correctly, I think we discussed here, when that became known, the issue of having an out of state lawyer offer advice.

In any case, Smac is laying out an argument that may make sense to him, but is jarring to many others who considered the helpline to be help for victims. This, however, just smacs (!) of misleading facetiousness:

I just came across this article: Why the Mormon Church Abuse Hotline Hasn’t Helped Victims

Oh. "Court testimony {} claimed" this. That makes it official, I suppose.

Does the helpline "protect the Church from potential lawsuits that could result in financial losses"? Sure, that was likely a consideration when the Church created it in 1995. But how could such "potential lawsuits" arise and "result in financial losses?" My off-the-cuff response would be: When the bishop fails to report abuse he is legally obligated to report. To the extent the "helpline" would help avoid a lawsuit, it would do it by telling the reluctant or confused bishop to report the abuse when doing so is required by law (or report it on his behalf).

Thanks,

[bolding added] He left out a bit.