"what the [lds] church misrepresented in the AP article response"

[Marcus]

Now that we’re back on track, I wanted to note Doc’s valid point here:

Tbf, from my perspective Moksha’s comment was observational rather than an attempt at edgy humor. I could be wrong, but that’s how it read to me.

He makes a good point in that KM’s actions actually do result in a reality where Mormons are ok with child rape. They can say they are disgusted by the act, but actions really are what matter here, and when a disgusting piece of garbage defends their current actions I can’t help but come to the realization that on some level they just don’t think it’s that big of a deal.

What other conclusion are we supposed to have?

- Doc

Your conclusion is logical. It also makes me wonder what working at that law firm must be like. Pretty horrifying to realize their job boils down to traumatizing victims further in order to protect the lds church, and they have virtually an unlimited budget to do so.

[JohnW]

I wanted to go back to this:

I'm not sure if it is as easy as it appears. In reality, the church has training on sexual abuse already in place. This is for all members of the church who interact with children. It covers the basics of spotting abuse and how to report it.

Could you explain more about this training? Because i have never heard of this level of training before, "for all members of the church who interact with children." Really? This training is provided for all members who interact with children?

This is relatively recent. Less than five years ago. I think the church is trying to do better at handling abuse. All members who have a calling requiring them to interact with minors go through an hour-long training on how to recognize and report abuse. The training expires every three years and must be renewed. In our ward, the bishop just asked every member to take the training to make tracking easier. If you do not take the training, or refuse to take the training, you will be released from a calling with minors or never receive a calling to work with minors if you don't already have one.

In California, starting this year, all these same members are required to have a background check and fingerprinting. That includes all primary teachers, youth advisors, bishoprics, anyone who works with minors. The church payed for all this. I believe this was in response to a California law, so it may not be church-wide yet. I would hazard to guess that it will be church-wide eventually. Again, I think the church is really concerned about this issue and past failures. They are trying to do better. President Nelson's talk this past conference seems to show this.

[JohnW]

JohnW:

You seem like a decent guy. However, I don't think there is much good to say about the Church's history here. It's pretty obvious that this has been a problem for a long, long time. Back in the 70's I was a witness to some horrific incidences of child abuse and was visited by the Stake President on assignment from some higher-ups. He counseled me to not say anything. This was an isolated incident he said and the perp was in counseling. I responded that the perp had been acting weird for years and that it was known among the kids that he was to be avoided, meaning to let the SP know that perhaps counseling wasn't working. I knew he had molested a bunch of kids in the Stake. The SP then put his arm on my shoulder telling me that the leaders were handling it and that we needed to keep this internal and he mentioned how the Tanners and other outsiders would make a big deal, overreacting to this isolated incident. Then I mentioned how the Deseret Gym was full of pedophiles and that I had seen some horrific stuff there as well. He kind of snapped at that point, repeating what he had said earlier and that the perp would be coming by to apologize. Well, that was a waste. The guy gave a half-assed apology and I couldn't look him in the eye out of disgust as I knew he succeeded with a couple of the kids in the Stake where he failed with me. I wanted to kick his ass and probably could have as I was a little bigger than him at the time.

Anyway, this has been a problem for a long, long time and your defenses ring hollow. It would be different if this were the first time and if the policy was just to contact the police instead of wanting to handle things internally so as to protect the false perfection image the Church cultivates. It's a problem that won't go away until there is some recognition, like actual repentance on the part of the Church. Also, people like you need to stop justifying this, because there isn't much to justify. The Church needs to repent and there is too much resistance from them at this point to defend. It looks really bad.

Yeah, I've heard similar stories about the 70s. I don't doubt that it happened. I'm not trying to argue the church has always been good at handling this issue. I think society in general wasn't very good at handling this issue 50 years ago. I am impressed with the church's recent efforts to get better on this issue, with the understanding that there is plenty of room for improvement.

[JohnW]

Is it too much to say the church acted so as to allow known child sex abuse to continue, that such is unacceptable and measures should be taken to never allow this to happen again?

One would think we could all agree on this point.

I think that is the question in this court case. If the church knowingly allowed abuse to happen, that would be a big problem. Anyone would agree that is bad behavior that needs to be corrected.

[Moksha]

One possible remedy would be for the client to instruct Kirton McConkie to insure that victims are protected, even if it means reporting offenders to the civil authorities.

Of course, that would be going against legal advice to keep everything silent so as to minimize lawsuits. However, there is much to be said for not looking like the eternal corporate villain who cares more about its pocketbook than it does about the lives of its members.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Is it too much to say the church acted so as to allow known child sex abuse to continue, that such is unacceptable and measures should be taken to never allow this to happen again?

One would think we could all agree on this point.

I think that is the question in this court case. If the church knowingly allowed abuse to happen, that would be a big problem. Anyone would agree that is bad behavior that needs to be corrected.

“If.” I remember a talk by some apostle years back where he railed against the word “if” as it’s meant to sow doubt. We’ve come full circle I guess. As a reminder there’s no “if” the “church” knew about this stuff:

http://www.hurley-law.com/wp-content/up ... 017-06.pdf

And:

https://mormonstories.org/stories-about ... ds-church/

“If.”

- Doc

[malkie]

JohnW:

You seem like a decent guy. However, I don't think there is much good to say about the Church's history here. It's pretty obvious that this has been a problem for a long, long time. Back in the 70's I was a witness to some horrific incidences of child abuse and was visited by the Stake President on assignment from some higher-ups. He counseled me to not say anything. This was an isolated incident he said and the perp was in counseling. I responded that the perp had been acting weird for years and that it was known among the kids that he was to be avoided, meaning to let the SP know that perhaps counseling wasn't working. I knew he had molested a bunch of kids in the Stake. The SP then put his arm on my shoulder telling me that the leaders were handling it and that we needed to keep this internal and he mentioned how the Tanners and other outsiders would make a big deal, overreacting to this isolated incident. Then I mentioned how the Deseret Gym was full of pedophiles and that I had seen some horrific stuff there as well. He kind of snapped at that point, repeating what he had said earlier and that the perp would be coming by to apologize. Well, that was a waste. The guy gave a half-assed apology and I couldn't look him in the eye out of disgust as I knew he succeeded with a couple of the kids in the Stake where he failed with me. I wanted to kick his ass and probably could have as I was a little bigger than him at the time.

Anyway, this has been a problem for a long, long time and your defenses ring hollow. It would be different if this were the first time and if the policy was just to contact the police instead of wanting to handle things internally so as to protect the false perfection image the Church cultivates. It's a problem that won't go away until there is some recognition, like actual repentance on the part of the Church. Also, people like you need to stop justifying this, because there isn't much to justify. The Church needs to repent and there is too much resistance from them at this point to defend. It looks really bad.

Yeah, I've heard similar stories about the 70s. I don't doubt that it happened. I'm not trying to argue the church has always been good at handling this issue. I think society in general wasn't very good at handling this issue 50 years ago. I am impressed with the church's recent efforts to get better on this issue, with the understanding that there is plenty of room for improvement.

If there is "plenty of room for improvement", and the recent efforts by the church are impressive, I'd expect to see huge improvements in the works as a matter of urgency. The church has, effectively, unlimited funds to use, a large law firm at its call, and a membership willing, nay eager, to obey every whim of their leaders, be it working against gay rights, or castigating women with more than one ear piercing.

With the resources at its disposal the church could revolutionise its handling of abuse cases overnight.

Perhaps I'm the only one who is missing any little sign of that happening.

One possible remedy would be for the client to instruct Kirton McConkie to insure that victims are protected, even if it means reporting offenders to the civil authorities.

This could happen immediately, if church leaders wanted it to.

[Marcus]

I wanted to go back to this:
Could you explain more about this training? Because i have never heard of this level of training before, "for all members of the church who interact with children." Really? This training is provided for all members who interact with children?

This is relatively recent. Less than five years ago. I think the church is trying to do better at handling abuse. All members who have a calling requiring them to interact with minors go through an hour-long training on how to recognize and report abuse. The training expires every three years and must be renewed. In our ward, the bishop just asked every member to take the training to make tracking easier. If you do not take the training, or refuse to take the training, you will be released from a calling with minors or never receive a calling to work with minors if you don't already have one.

I think you're not remembering quite right. After I posted the above comment I looked for myself.

Only three years ago, not 5, the lds church made this announcement:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has launched an online training course for all adults who interact with children and youth in their Church assignments.”

The training can be found at protectingchildren.churchofjesuschrist.org and takes approximately 30 minutes to complete, according to the website.
https://ksltv.com/419789/church-announc ... ith-youth/?=&

And according to the announcement it takes 30 minutes, not an hour.

In California, starting this year, all these same members are required to have a background check and fingerprinting. That includes all primary teachers, youth advisors, bishoprics, anyone who works with minors. The church payed for all this. I believe this was in response to a California law, so it may not be church-wide yet.

Yes. But California law requires this of everyone, not just "all these same [church] members." Your wording is something i heard referred to recently as "severity softening" and is a little misleading.

I would hazard to guess that it will be church-wide eventually. Again, I think the church is really concerned about this issue and past failures. They are trying to do better. President Nelson's talk this past conference seems to show this.

No, I don't think so. There would be more in place, more universally, and not only in states where they are forced to comply.

The church I belong to now has had national requirements of fingerprinting, background checks, and training (with regular recertification required regularly) in place for well over a decade. (I don't know how far it goes back, only that we went through it 10 years ago when we started volunteering.)

The training we went through was in person, lasted 3-4 hours, and was guided by experts who answered many, many questions. I can't imagine what a solo, 30 minute online quickie can accomplish other than just be there for show.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I like that term, Marcus. “Severity softening.” It feels subversive and designed to make the “church” unaccountable to its own sins. The passive language is inherently bad-faith posturing.

- Doc

[Marcus]

Yeah, I've heard similar stories about the 70s. I don't doubt that it happened. I'm not trying to argue the church has always been good at handling this issue. I think society in general wasn't very good at handling this issue 50 years ago. I am impressed with the church's recent efforts to get better on this issue, with the understanding that there is plenty of room for improvement.

If there is "plenty of room for improvement", and the recent efforts by the church are impressive, I'd expect to see huge improvements in the works as a matter of urgency. The church has, effectively, unlimited funds to use, a large law firm at its call, and a membership willing, nay eager, to obey every whim of their leaders, be it working against gay rights, or castigating women with more than one ear piercing.

With the resources at its disposal the church could revolutionise its handling of abuse cases overnight.

Perhaps I'm the only one who is missing any little sign of that happening.

No, you're not. The pdf of cases that Doc has posted repeatedly is subtitled "a history, 1959-2017." And there have been a flood of reports and stories published continuing to document this problem well past 2017. The simple fact that background checks are required by law in CA, and CA is the only state the lds church has now decided to "require" them for its members is a perfect example. There is not much in way of sufficient "recent efforts."