"what the [lds] church misrepresented in the AP article response"
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:39 am
excellent breakdown of the errors. from https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... p_article/
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
Thank you for sharing your ‘on the ground’ experience. Rings true.JohnW wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:59 pmI didn't follow the AP thread on this board much, so maybe there was a balanced, even-handed discussion of both sides of the argument there. Just in case there wasn't much discussion from the perspective of the church on that thread, I figured I would post my experience here. I'm not trying to be contentious. I, like most of you, was sickened to read about the details of the abuse case going on in Arizona.
I called the church hotline at least 10-15 times over the six years I saved as bishop. Every time I felt like they were trying to help the situation come to a healthy close. I clearly got the impression that the church lawyers cared first about the health and safety of the members; second, the spiritual health of the members; and third, the name of the church and any legal repercussions that might fall on the church. I can't go into details of course, but there were multiple cases where things were reported to the police. There was one time where reporting to the police wasn't strictly necessary, but in conversation with church legal, it was decided it was in the best interest of the health and safety of the members to report it to the police.
As to the Arizona case, while reading the above, I could see how the error could have possibly happened. If church legal thought the abuse was one isolated event, based on a judgement call from the bishop, they may have encouraged him to continue counseling for a little while to see if the member would turn themselves in. That would have been in the best interest of the member. It looks as if the bishop found out in later counseling sessions that the abuse was ongoing. At that point he should have called and talked to church legal again and they would have instructed him to call the police immediately. Based on my experience, I am convinced that if the church new the abuse was ongoing, they would have instructed the bishop to contact the police or would have contacted the police themselves. Granted, my experience is with California and not Arizona, although California also doesn't mandate clergy reporting. On the other hand, I have a hard time seeing how they could go through an entire excommunication process without the bishop putting details about the ongoing abuse in the report and someone at church headquarters seeing it and flagging that as something to report to the police. It looks as if the member almost never attended church, so maybe there wasn't a ton of attention to detail in the excommunication process.
Anyway, it seems like some people here have this idea that the church is actively trying to hide abuse in its ranks. My every experience with the hotline says that is patently silly. I will admit that the church is a large organization and bishops are not trained to handle these sorts of difficult cases. Mistakes are bound to happen in such a large system. Unfortunately in these sort of cases, mistakes mean someone's life is completely destroyed.
The church could turn this around on a dime and fix it if it really wanted to. It has the resources. It doesn't have the will.JohnW wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:59 pmI will admit that the church is a large organization and bishops are not trained to handle these sorts of difficult cases. Mistakes are bound to happen in such a large system. Unfortunately in these sort of cases, mistakes mean someone's life is completely destroyed.
10-15 times over the course of 6 years. That's quite a span. Closer to 15 than 10? Is this specific to sexual abuse? THat's kind of a scary thought. When you say there were multiple cases where things were reported to the police, does that also imply there were cases that weren't reported to the police? Why would that be? And why would the Church lawyers advise against doing so? I do believe that's what we're getting down to on this topic. Why would the Church present reasons why sexual abuse should not be reported?JohnW wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:59 pmI didn't follow the AP thread on this board much, so maybe there was a balanced, even-handed discussion of both sides of the argument there. Just in case there wasn't much discussion from the perspective of the church on that thread, I figured I would post my experience here. I'm not trying to be contentious. I, like most of you, was sickened to read about the details of the abuse case going on in Arizona.
I called the church hotline at least 10-15 times over the six years I saved as bishop. Every time I felt like they were trying to help the situation come to a healthy close. I clearly got the impression that the church lawyers cared first about the health and safety of the members; second, the spiritual health of the members; and third, the name of the church and any legal repercussions that might fall on the church. I can't go into details of course, but there were multiple cases where things were reported to the police. There was one time where reporting to the police wasn't strictly necessary, but in conversation with church legal, it was decided it was in the best interest of the health and safety of the members to report it to the police.
That would describe perfectly the idiocy of the Church's law advice system, it seems. Of course they should advise him to call the police and not hope a confessor is just going to stop.As to the Arizona case, while reading the above, I could see how the error could have possibly happened. If church legal thought the abuse was one isolated event, based on a judgement call from the bishop, they may have encouraged him to continue counseling for a little while to see if the member would turn themselves in.
No. Not close.That would have been in the best interest of the member.
THat is a big assumption it seems. It appears you too had cases where you were told not to call the police. Sure there were multiple in the 10-15 where you were ok to call the police, but other times, apparently not? How do we know this Bishop did not seek further guidance when he learned of the ongoing abuse? That'd be a silly sounding assumption here.It looks as if the bishop found out in later counseling sessions that the abuse was ongoing. At that point he should have called and talked to church legal again and they would have instructed him to call the police immediately.
But apparently the abuse continued, perhaps at an increasing pace. I suppose we can blame the bishop in all of this, and we have good reason to do so. But it's also true the counsel didn't resolve anything. Indeed, if your theory is correct that the counsel told him not to call the police because the abuse might stop or might have stopped and that's ok to have done it once, legally, or something...and for some reason that's the best thing for the member, then in all measures the whole system failed. That the Church put out a release that misrepresented the whole affair, is doubly problematic. It jumped the concern about the name of the Church right up over and above the first two priorities you mention. That's pretty bad. And doesn't look good at all.Based on my experience, I am convinced that if the church new the abuse was ongoing, they would have instructed the bishop to contact the police or would have contacted the police themselves. Granted, my experience is with California and not Arizona, although California also doesn't mandate clergy reporting. On the other hand, I have a hard time seeing how they could go through an entire excommunication process without the bishop putting details about the ongoing abuse in the report and someone at church headquarters seeing it and flagging that as something to report to the police. It looks as if the member almost never attended church, so maybe there wasn't a ton of attention to detail in the excommunication process.
One must wonder if belief in God is part of the problem here. If God wishes to see people burned, tortured or whatever for punishment of not believing correctly while here, all for the sake of getting some to be saved and continue to worship him, why is it not reasonable to cause a few lives destroyed for the sake of the many? "We got a good system. It may fail sometimes and some lives get destroyed but in the sum it works pretty well. And we're still saving some people here and there, so we need to keep it up."Anyway, it seems like some people here have this idea that the church is actively trying to hide abuse in its ranks. My every experience with the hotline says that is patently silly. I will admit that the church is a large organization and bishops are not trained to handle these sorts of difficult cases. Mistakes are bound to happen in such a large system. Unfortunately in these sort of cases, mistakes mean someone's life is completely destroyed.
Indeed. Thank you for confirming a perpetrator-centric approach within the Church.MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:41 pmThank you for sharing your ‘on the ground’ experience. Rings true.JohnW wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:59 pmI didn't follow the AP thread on this board much, so maybe there was a balanced, even-handed discussion of both sides of the argument there. Just in case there wasn't much discussion from the perspective of the church on that thread, I figured I would post my experience here. I'm not trying to be contentious. I, like most of you, was sickened to read about the details of the abuse case going on in Arizona.
I called the church hotline at least 10-15 times over the six years I saved as bishop. Every time I felt like they were trying to help the situation come to a healthy close. I clearly got the impression that the church lawyers cared first about the health and safety of the members; second, the spiritual health of the members; and third, the name of the church and any legal repercussions that might fall on the church. I can't go into details of course, but there were multiple cases where things were reported to the police. There was one time where reporting to the police wasn't strictly necessary, but in conversation with church legal, it was decided it was in the best interest of the health and safety of the members to report it to the police.
As to the Arizona case, while reading the above, I could see how the error could have possibly happened. If church legal thought the abuse was one isolated event, based on a judgement call from the bishop, they may have encouraged him to continue counseling for a little while to see if the member would turn themselves in. That would have been in the best interest of the member. It looks as if the bishop found out in later counseling sessions that the abuse was ongoing. At that point he should have called and talked to church legal again and they would have instructed him to call the police immediately. Based on my experience, I am convinced that if the church new the abuse was ongoing, they would have instructed the bishop to contact the police or would have contacted the police themselves. Granted, my experience is with California and not Arizona, although California also doesn't mandate clergy reporting. On the other hand, I have a hard time seeing how they could go through an entire excommunication process without the bishop putting details about the ongoing abuse in the report and someone at church headquarters seeing it and flagging that as something to report to the police. It looks as if the member almost never attended church, so maybe there wasn't a ton of attention to detail in the excommunication process.
Anyway, it seems like some people here have this idea that the church is actively trying to hide abuse in its ranks. My every experience with the hotline says that is patently silly. I will admit that the church is a large organization and bishops are not trained to handle these sorts of difficult cases. Mistakes are bound to happen in such a large system. Unfortunately in these sort of cases, mistakes mean someone's life is completely destroyed.
Regards,
MG
(My bold.)JohnW wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:59 pmAs to the Arizona case, while reading the above, I could see how the error could have possibly happened. If church legal thought the abuse was one isolated event, based on a judgement call from the bishop, they may have encouraged him to continue counseling for a little while to see if the member would turn themselves in. That would have been in the best interest of the member. It looks as if the bishop found out in later counseling sessions that the abuse was ongoing. At that point he should have called and talked to church legal again and they would have instructed him to call the police immediately. Based on my experience, I am convinced that if the church new the abuse was ongoing, they would have instructed the bishop to contact the police or would have contacted the police themselves.