SeN: Child Abusers Deserve Clergy Protection?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

My sense is that he thinks he's "scoring points." Critics are pointing out that the Church's mechanisms for dealing with abuse are problematic and insufficient, and so he is turning to these articles in the hopes of saying, "Nuh uh! You're wrong because forcing clergy to report abuse doesn't work!" Except, of course, that's not what the articles say.

Meanwhile, I posed a very simple question to him--admittedly kind of a personal one--but a simple one nonetheless: i.e., Would he, if faced with this sort of horrific situation, trust the 'hotline"? If it was one of his own loved ones who'd been victimized, does he believe that the Church hotline is "as valuable a tool as exists in the world to protect children," as he posted in an earlier blog entry? It's a simple "Yes or No" question, but of course he hasn't answered it--and I knew he wouldn't answer it. In fact, if you had asked me to predict what he'd do instead, I probably would have said, "Oh, I don't know. Dodge the question? Feign ignorance? Spin the issue somehow? Sling insults?" And guess what? I would have been right, on pretty much every count!

But in a sense, his non-answer *IS* still a kind of answer. Of course he doesn't believe that this phone number would be helpful. There is no way that, if it was one of his own kin who was involved, that he would trust the Church and its attorneys and bureaucrats to do the right thing. Because the reality is that he really only believes in the Church for very selfish reasons: he thinks that it's necessary so that *HE* can continue to live a life of luxury into infinity, but everyone else? Well, they are going to have to settle for traveling back in crowded, uncomfortable coach. The "unwashed" rank-and-file can go ahead and rely on the "hotline" if *THEIR* kids get abused, but the Afore? No way. Just look at that poorly Xeroxed form that Drumdude posted and tell me that the Afore would be okay with one of his own relatives being reduced to little more than a checkmark on a form like that. But he's more than happy to peddle this sort of thing to his readers. That level of hypocrisy is astounding.

Quite reprehensible if you ask me: particularly when it comes to this subject matter. Then again, he can go ahead and announce that I'm wrong and that, in fact, he *would* happily trust the hotline in the case of one of his own kin, and I would have to admit to being wrong about this. But I don't think that I am.

The Afore's hypocrisy you've pointed out is quite revealing. The Afore is essentially saying, "The system I defend is good enough for your family, but not for mine." It's a classic case of traveling in first class while telling everyone else that coach is a perfectly fine way to fly.

The Afore knows, deep down, that the Church's reporting system sucks and is destroying lives. The Afore's non-answer is a billboard-sized admission of his hypocrisy and guilt. The Afore definitely has blood on his hands for trying to defend the indefensible.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not listed its sex offenders.

So far, Floodlit has found:

4,301 reports of sex abuse by Latter-day Saints
374 times LDS officials allegedly hid abuse
$52 million paid after alleged failures
80 reports of abuse in LDS church buildings
77 convicted former Mormon bishops
94 ongoing criminal cases
122 ongoing civil lawsuits

https://floodlit.org/

These seem to have missed DCP's latest Hitchens file entry.

Unbelievable! And, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[drumdude]

These seem to have missed DCP's latest Hitchens file entry.

Unbelievable! And, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Out of 1000 sexual assaults, 995 perpetrators will walk free: https://rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

77 convicted LDS bishops means many, many more sexually offending Mormon Bishops got away with it.

[Moksha]

The Hotline is designed to protect the Church from bad publicity and lawsuits, not to protect the victims. This is why the Church is against the concept of empathy.

[Doctor Scratch]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not listed its sex offenders.

So far, Floodlit has found:

4,301 reports of sex abuse by Latter-day Saints
374 times LDS officials allegedly hid abuse
$52 million paid after alleged failures
80 reports of abuse in LDS church buildings
77 convicted former Mormon bishops
94 ongoing criminal cases
122 ongoing civil lawsuits

https://floodlit.org/

These seem to have missed DCP's latest Hitchens file entry.

You are quite right. In fact, the Afore has responded to this thread in predictable fashion: I.e., by retreating to some luxurious mountain retreat (“overlooking a stream”) and stuffing his face with rich foods. He was apparently so rattled by the criticism on this thread that he was rendered incapable of even *plagiarizing* something just in order to have a daily blog entry! How embarrassing for him!

We really ought to open up a “Peterson File”: how Jesus Christ’s One True Church on Earth helps to make the world a better place. Today’s entry?:

My wife and I enjoyed a very pleasant dinner on Saturday evening on the veranda of a cabin in Mill Creek Canyon (or Millcreek Canyon), above Salt Lake City (and directly beside the pleasantly burbling Mill Creek itself or, at least, a tributary of it). We were invited to their cabin by a couple whom we hadn’t previously known, but of whom we had heard for decades, a couple who had spent many years abroad (including lengthy periods in Cairo and Jerusalem). We talked about a number things, including, unexpectedly, some remarkable stories out of the Second World War….It was also fun to reminisce about common friends and acquaintances — and we were surprised to discover how remarkably many such common acquaintances and friends we have. There are few better things in this life, I think, than good conversation with good people over a good meal in beautiful surroundings.

Nothing like dinner in an exotic locale to flush the idea of the Church’s handling of sexual abuse out of your mind, right? Add one to the Peterson File! How better the world is thanks to this! All hail the LDS Church!

[drumdude]

Certain critics, of course, are now likely to say that I didn’t actually read the article and that I’m misrepresenting its contents. (This has been alleged several times over the past few days.) Permit me to anticipate the responses: The article actually argues, they may perhaps say, that national sexual violence data depicts Utah as the most unsafe of the fifty states for girls and women. The nation’s highest-quality and most representative survey on sexual violence, they will possibly say, actually found that Utah had some of the highest rates of sexual violence in the Union. I’m just too lazy to have noticed and too dishonest to fess up.

Not the most unsafe. Just #7 out of 50.




https://www.statista.com/statistics/232 ... -by-state/

[Dr. Shades]

Out of 1000 sexual assaults, 995 perpetrators will walk free:

But individual perpetrators tend to assault more than once. So, statistically, assuming the above numbers are correct, every 200 assaults yields a conviction. Therefore, far, far fewer than 995 perpetrators will go free.

https://rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

From the link:

Only 310 out of every 1,000 sexual assaults are reported to police. That means more than 2 out of 3 go unreported.

If they go unreported, how can we know how many there are?

77 convicted LDS bishops means many, many more sexually offending Mormon Bishops got away with it.

I'm sure that's true, but I don't think it's anywhere near as many as 199 out of 200.

[Marcus]

Peterson got a significant, factually based, well thought out response. He accused the responder of attacking him.

Patrice
2 hours ago
DP: “Certain critics, of course, are now likely to say that I didn’t actually read the article and that I’m misrepresenting its contents.”

I don’t think you’ve read the article. Would you be interested in discussing what this article actually says?

The article, in its earnest attempt to reframe the narrative on sexual violence in Utah, inadvertently creates a more compelling case for skepticism than it does for celebration. While it presents a trove of data from a specific CDC survey, its methodology for drawing conclusions and its selective use of information are ripe for critical dissection.

First, the central premise rests on the superiority of the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) over other data, particularly FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data. The article's uncritical acceptance of it is telling. The NISVS, is a survey that relies on self-reporting and memory recall, which can be influenced by cultural factors, social stigma, and the very anonymity it purports to champion. The idea that a single survey can definitively prove a state is "measurably better" than others on such a complex issue is a bold, unsupported by the data and arguably, naïve claim.

Second, the article is a masterclass in selective data presentation. It cherry-picks data points to paint a glowing picture of Utah's sexual violence rates, highlighting every "lowest," "third lowest," and "sixth lowest" ranking. Yet, it quickly dismisses or downplays contradictory evidence. For instance, it acknowledges other "high-quality studies" from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey that show Utah with much higher-than-average rates, but it then immediately tries to explain away these inconvenient truths. The article suggests that these surveys might be better because Utah has "notable strides in raising awareness of sexual violence" and that it is good at getting people to respond. The logic is circular and self-serving: Utah has low rates of sexual violence, but when a survey shows high rates, it's not because Utah has a problem, it's because Utah is just so much better at getting people to report it. Again, this is unsupported by the evidence.

Third, the article's conclusion, that "sincere, healthy religious faith" and the "habits spirituality often promotes" may be the protective factor, is a leap of faith itself. It cites a "review of 500 studies" and "broader international research," but this is a broad, unsubstantiated claim that serves to validate a pre-existing cultural narrative rather than to provide a rigorous, data-driven explanation. It's not a neutral academic analysis; it's a piece of public relations disguised as journalism.

Finally, the article's true purpose isn't to start a conversation; it's to change the widely held perception of Utah's sexual violence problem by presenting a one-sided argument under the guise of objective data analysis. It’s unsupportable.

DanielPeterson Patrice
2 hours ago
Patrice: "I don’t think you’ve read the article."

But I did.

Patrice: "Would you be interested in discussing what this article actually says?"

No. Not with you. I've grown tired of your false accusations. Doesn't it feel better, though, to no longer need to feign not being an adversary? I would think that the pretending must have grown old.

I've given you the information that you need in order to contact Dr. Hess and Professor Baughman and challenge them. The ball is in your court.

I'm pretty sure this is why he never comments anywhere else, any more. People don't tolerate this nonsense. He has to stay in spaces he can completely control.

[Moksha]

...they may perhaps say, that national sexual violence data depicts Utah as the most unsafe of the fifty states for girls and women.

Possibly the most unsafe, but that would be exclusively for assaults within churches, which places Utah at a distinct disadvantage.

[I Have Questions]

Peterson got a significant, factually based, well thought out response. He accused the responder of attacking him.

Patrice
2 hours ago
DP: “Certain critics, of course, are now likely to say that I didn’t actually read the article and that I’m misrepresenting its contents.”

I don’t think you’ve read the article. Would you be interested in discussing what this article actually says?

The article, in its earnest attempt to reframe the narrative on sexual violence in Utah, inadvertently creates a more compelling case for skepticism than it does for celebration. While it presents a trove of data from a specific CDC survey, its methodology for drawing conclusions and its selective use of information are ripe for critical dissection.

First, the central premise rests on the superiority of the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) over other data, particularly FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data. The article's uncritical acceptance of it is telling. The NISVS, is a survey that relies on self-reporting and memory recall, which can be influenced by cultural factors, social stigma, and the very anonymity it purports to champion. The idea that a single survey can definitively prove a state is "measurably better" than others on such a complex issue is a bold, unsupported by the data and arguably, naïve claim.

Second, the article is a masterclass in selective data presentation. It cherry-picks data points to paint a glowing picture of Utah's sexual violence rates, highlighting every "lowest," "third lowest," and "sixth lowest" ranking. Yet, it quickly dismisses or downplays contradictory evidence. For instance, it acknowledges other "high-quality studies" from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey that show Utah with much higher-than-average rates, but it then immediately tries to explain away these inconvenient truths. The article suggests that these surveys might be better because Utah has "notable strides in raising awareness of sexual violence" and that it is good at getting people to respond. The logic is circular and self-serving: Utah has low rates of sexual violence, but when a survey shows high rates, it's not because Utah has a problem, it's because Utah is just so much better at getting people to report it. Again, this is unsupported by the evidence.

Third, the article's conclusion, that "sincere, healthy religious faith" and the "habits spirituality often promotes" may be the protective factor, is a leap of faith itself. It cites a "review of 500 studies" and "broader international research," but this is a broad, unsubstantiated claim that serves to validate a pre-existing cultural narrative rather than to provide a rigorous, data-driven explanation. It's not a neutral academic analysis; it's a piece of public relations disguised as journalism.

Finally, the article's true purpose isn't to start a conversation; it's to change the widely held perception of Utah's sexual violence problem by presenting a one-sided argument under the guise of objective data analysis. It’s unsupportable.

DanielPeterson Patrice
2 hours ago
Patrice: "I don’t think you’ve read the article."

But I did.

Patrice: "Would you be interested in discussing what this article actually says?"

No. Not with you. I've grown tired of your false accusations. Doesn't it feel better, though, to no longer need to feign not being an adversary? I would think that the pretending must have grown old.

I've given you the information that you need in order to contact Dr. Hess and Professor Baughman and challenge them. The ball is in your court.

I'm pretty sure this is why he never comments anywhere else, any more. People don't tolerate this nonsense. He has to stay in spaces he can completely control.

That speaks volumes in terms of the confirmation bias at play in everything that Peterson does and says. I’m actually surprised the commenter hasn’t been shadow banned like Gemli.

This was a chance to debate someone. To discuss with someone the merits of the Church’s process and procedure on an important topic. What does Peterson do? Runs away like a coward.