There you have it. The Bishop cannot help without the abuser facing the legal consequences of his actions. It's game over.
By necessity, the Bishop must also ignore the needs of the victim(s), and cannot assist them in receiving help to stop the abuse, or treat the trauma from the abuse. Even if the victim is a member of his congregation. He cannot help the victim receive medical care, or counseling services, because even LDSSS is staffed by mandated reporters.
The victims are secondary (if even that) to the abuser. One need only look at the infamous Arizona case. Despite knowing what was happening to the infant, and the other child, at no point did the Bishop try to get any type of services for the victims. They were members of his congregation, but protecting, and helping the abuser is priority. The victims and their suffering is secondary, at best, because helping the victims automatically means legal consequences for the abuser.
There you have it. The Bishop cannot help without the abuser facing the legal consequences of his actions. It's game over.
By necessity, the Bishop must also ignore the needs of the victim(s), and cannot assist them in receiving help to stop the abuse, or treat the trauma from the abuse. Even if the victim is a member of his congregation. He cannot help the victim receive medical care, or counseling services, because even LDSSS is staffed by mandated reporters.
The victims are secondary (if even that) to the abuser. One need only look at the infamous Arizona case. Despite knowing what was happening to the infant, and the other child, at no point did the Bishop try to get any type of services for the victims. They were members of his congregation, but protecting, and helping the abuser is priority. The victims and their suffering is secondary, at best, because helping the victims automatically means legal consequences for the abuser.
Is this a consequence of applying the concept that the abuser must be granted agency to abuse, and that (to be blunt) the abused just has to suck it up?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
...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.
This is an excellent point, which Dr. Seuss also discussed. Consider this from the LDS site:
...If a bishop, branch president, or stake president suspects or learns of abuse, he is instructed to call a help line number. Where available, he will be put in touch with a professional counselor to help the victim, stop the abuse, and prevent abuse of others... https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... oach-abuse
If the victim contacted the bishop, this is a moot point, because the bishop doesn't have confidentiality with the abuser and should be reporting.
But, given the confidentiality requirements, how does a bishop who heard this from the abuser justify breaking that confidentiality to tell a professional counselor the situation? What if they are a mandated reporter? I can see naming the victim, sort of, but how do you 'prevent the abuse of others' without knowing who the abuser is?
By necessity, the Bishop must also ignore the needs of the victim(s), and cannot assist them in receiving help to stop the abuse, or treat the trauma from the abuse. Even if the victim is a member of his congregation. He cannot help the victim receive medical care, or counseling services, because even LDSSS is staffed by mandated reporters.
The victims are secondary (if even that) to the abuser. One need only look at the infamous Arizona case. Despite knowing what was happening to the infant, and the other child, at no point did the Bishop try to get any type of services for the victims. They were members of his congregation, but protecting, and helping the abuser is priority. The victims and their suffering is secondary, at best, because helping the victims automatically means legal consequences for the abuser.
Is this a consequence of applying the concept that the abuser must be granted agency to abuse, and that (to be blunt) the abused just has to suck it up?
And here's another part of that, from the LDS site:
Convicted Abusers Can Be Forgiven
As Christians, we believe in forgiveness. If those convicted of abuse pay the legal price for their crimes and undergo the rigorous repentance process, they can be forgiven and regain full fellowship in the Church.
Note abusers must be convicted abusers. How many victims are paid off to avoid this? LDS machinations seem to quite often succeed in preventing an abuser from being charged, let alone convicted. So, if not convicted, they don't have to pay the legal price. It's a pretty vicious circle, apparently caused by the goal of protecting the LDS church, first and foremost.
Every time I see something like this it just boggles my mind. Different states have different statues as if a Priest, Bishop, Paster is a mandated reporter. It's up to the Legislature to change the laws if a Bishop, Priest, Clergyman has to report. In New York, New Jersey, or California they are mandated reporters. They would call the police if child abuse was disclosed during a confession. In Utah, Idaho, Arizona they are not mandated reporters. That's why they call the hotline to see if they need to report. If it was in New York the Mormon Bishop he would have to call the police. If you live in a state where the clergy is not a mandated reporter you need to change your Legislature so laws are written where they have to report: Teachers, Nurses, Doctors, etc all ready report in all states. You want a change - It's up to you to vote the legislature that write the right not to report out of office and a new one that makes mandatory reporting law. Then will the Governor sign it into law. What's the Governor or candidate's views. Then the Judge just looks at the code and responds accordingly.
