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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

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

Post by Marcus »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:36 am
Marcus wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:31 am


Another sidestep of the issue, to accomplish your goal.

Then ignore, willya? 🙂

You have not been following your own advice. I would be more than happy to have you ignore me. 😁

If indeed I’m a simple troll, others will see right through it and stop feeding me. And yet, here we are.

I think there’s something else at play…

Regards,
MG
Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:06 pm
...MG jumps in to troll...And around and around. MG doesn’t give two craps about data, methodology or logic. All he wants is to get people mad. #ignorethetroll
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8979
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

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

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:29 am
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:33 am
MG- Your “church” allowed and allows men who rape babies, children, and others to avoid law enforcement. It literally allows rapists, baby rapists no less, to go scott free and continue to rape babies, children, and others. It is a well-known fact that recidivism among men who sexually assault family members is nearly 100%.

Your church does this. It does it through “revelation”, policy, and politically through legislators, PACs, and lawyers.

You’re baby rapist apologetics is disgusting. Your “church” is disgusting.

- Doc
At the end of the day we will disagree on whether or not the church supports and condones/encourages the actions of a child molester/abuser.

The church isn’t disgusting. The abusers are.

You seem to forget, for all intents and purposes the ‘church’ is the membership.

Individuals. Each with the right of agency. Individuals.

You almost seem to be taking the ‘Biden speech’ approach. Blanket condemnation.

In this way you are able to condemn a whole institution that you just happen to hate/dislike.

Regards,
MG
Your “church” does the 2nd worst thing it could do other than the evil act itself. It sends the criminal back to his family to rape them again. We know this because the rapists keep confessing over the years to the same crime.

Are you this far gone where you’ll defend your organization’s morally bankrupt policies over the safety of the victims, that you’re literally choosing the wrong? Man, seriously what in the “F” is wrong with you?

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

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

Post by JohnW »

So maybe it was a mistake to post on this topic. Situations that are highly emotional usually don't lend well to rational discussion. I can't go into any details, of course, but I can try to clear up a few obvious misconceptions. I probably won't respond to everyone just because I think if I clear up a few things, most questions will be moot.
dastardly stem wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:40 pm
JohnW wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:59 pm
I 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.
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?
This is an example of quick escalation from an assumption. No, these calls were almost never on sexual abuse. These calls were often heart-wrenching to the individuals going through those issues, but usually not hot-button topics that the general membership would be concerned with. Think along the lines of legal concerns relating to divorce and child custody, situations where restraining orders are in place, or when bishops should or should not testify in court as a witness. This just names a few of the dozens of possible situations where a bishop would not normally know how to navigate a situation. Bishops simply can't be experts in counseling, legal issues, financial issues, technical issues, etc. I personally am glad the church had various people we could call in Salt Lake who would help us navigate these sometimes complex situations. I always felt uplifted when talking with the various hotlines. I never got the sense they were upset that I called (even when I sometimes had to call on a weekend). Usually, I could literally hear the smile in their voice as they were happy to help someone who was completely lost on how to proceed. Is it possible mistakes can be made? Certainly. Should the fear of a big mistake with terrible repercussions mean we should stop trying to help people going through these issues? Certainly not.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8979
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

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

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

JohnW,

Hypophora. Virtually everything you posted sidestepped DS’ questions. Why don’t you take a crack at my question:

Did you protect any members who confessed to sexually abusing others by not reporting them to law enforcement?

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

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

Post by Marcus »

JohnW wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:37 am
So maybe it was a mistake to post on this topic. Situations that are highly emotional usually don't lend well to rational discussion. I can't go into any details, of course, but I can try to clear up a few obvious misconceptions. I probably won't respond to everyone just because I think if I clear up a few things, most questions will be moot.
dastardly stem wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:40 pm


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?
This is an example of quick escalation from an assumption. No, these calls were almost never on sexual abuse. These calls were often heart-wrenching to the individuals going through those issues, but usually not hot-button topics that the general membership would be concerned with. Think along the lines of legal concerns relating to divorce and child custody, situations where restraining orders are in place, or when bishops should or should not testify in court as a witness. This just names a few of the dozens of possible situations where a bishop would not normally know how to navigate a situation. Bishops simply can't be experts in counseling, legal issues, financial issues, technical issues, etc. I personally am glad the church had various people we could call in Salt Lake who would help us navigate these sometimes complex situations. I always felt uplifted when talking with the various hotlines. I never got the sense they were upset that I called (even when I sometimes had to call on a weekend). Usually, I could literally hear the smile in their voice as they were happy to help someone who was completely lost on how to proceed. Is it possible mistakes can be made? Certainly. Should the fear of a big mistake with terrible repercussions mean we should stop trying to help people going through these issues? Certainly not.
the above is bullcrap.
Bishops and stake presidents should call the help line when addressing situations involving any type of abuse.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/cal ... e?lang=eng
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

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

Post by JohnW »

mcjathan wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 12:42 pm
JohnW wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:59 pm
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.
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. Bishops deal with situations much more complicated than that, but I'm not sure if further training is needed. If I were putting together a large organization, would it make sense to train the staff how to handle every single situation of potentially over a hundred possible outcomes? Would they remember their training when situation 143b occurs? Or would it make more sense to have a hotline with experts who can navigate the staff whenever a difficult situation occurs? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I don't think they are simple answers.
JohnW wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:59 pm
Unfortunately in these sort of cases, mistakes mean someone's life is completely destroyed.
After reading my post again, I think I would like to rephrase the above to the following: "Unfortunately in these sort of cases, mistakes mean we fail to help someone who's life is completely destroyed."

I think it is important to remember that bishops are trying their best to help people who are going through life-changing heartache. Mistakes will be made, but it is similar to someone trying to rescue a person who falls overboard on a boat. I don't know if I would immediately criticize someone who throws out a life preserver but whose aim is a little off. At the same time, there is always room for improvement.
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

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

Post by JohnW »

Morley wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 3:45 pm
JohnW wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:59 pm
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.
(My bold.)

I appreciate you responding to this, John--I really do. I applaud your attempt to help others understand what you see as another viewpoint. That said, much of what you have to say turns my stomach.

I think Stem and Steuss probably say it best in their critiques--however, I need to add my nickel to this discussion.

In the bolded portion above: Why?! What's to be gained by putting off reporting of the heinous crime of child sexual abuse? Would the Church encourage the bishop to "continue counseling for a little while to see if the member would turn themselves in," if the man had confessed to a murder? Why is it important to see if the perpetuator turns themselves in? At the very least, why the hell wouldn't the church have followed up on this, to find out if this was resolved and the child was safe?

You typify this as a "mistake" on the part of the Church and the bishop. Dropping a glass of milk on my living room carpet is an example of a mistake. Failing to intervene in the ongoing rape of a child is an example of profound fecklessness and moral degradation.

...


edited to add: John, as a bishop, did you find that men stopped raping their own and other children after you confronted them and asked them to stop? I'm genuinely curious.
Again, I may have communicated poorly here. The above bolded portion assumes the bishop thought this was an occurrence far in the past, and the child was in no current danger. In that case, it MAY be possible the church would have advised the bishop to counsel a bit longer. If that were the case, I am surprised the church did not call back to follow up on the situation. I have had Salt Lake call me to follow up on different types of situations before. There had to have been some kind of miscommunication or misunderstanding involved here.

Anyway, I probably should not have speculated here. Eventually I will learn that speculating on a situation for which I do not have the details gets me into trouble. We really don't know what happened here.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8979
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

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

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

JohnW wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:52 am
mcjathan wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 12:42 pm


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.
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. Bishops deal with situations much more complicated than that, but I'm not sure if further training is needed. If I were putting together a large organization, would it make sense to train the staff how to handle every single situation of potentially over a hundred possible outcomes? Would they remember their training when situation 143b occurs? Or would it make more sense to have a hotline with experts who can navigate the staff whenever a difficult situation occurs? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I don't think they are simple answers.
JohnW wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:59 pm
Unfortunately in these sort of cases, mistakes mean someone's life is completely destroyed.
After reading my post again, I think I would like to rephrase the above to the following: "Unfortunately in these sort of cases, mistakes mean we fail to help someone who's life is completely destroyed."

I think it is important to remember that bishops are trying their best to help people who are going through life-changing heartache. Mistakes will be made, but it is similar to someone trying to rescue a person who falls overboard on a boat. I don't know if I would immediately criticize someone who throws out a life preserver but whose aim is a little off. At the same time, there is always room for improvement.
Your moral center ^ has been utterly compromised. That is what Mormonism does to a person’s ethos.

Child Rapist > i rape my kids and post it on the Internet

Bishop > this is complicated. i better send you back to your family.

A month later …

Child Rapist > I can’t seem to stop with the raping and filming and all that jazz

Bishop > ugh. this is too difficult for me to figure out as an adult with a completely screwed up moral center. i better call some lawyers!

Lawyers > ten hail marys and definitely don’t involve law enforcement.

Bishop > o-oh-okay

Child Rapist > uh, yeah, i’m still raping my kids and i have a baby on the way. just so you know. a baby. i ain’t sayin’ i’m going to do horrible things to this baby, but i’m battin’ a thousand over here, bro.

Bishop > gee, willickers. gosh. this is just such a mystery to me. welp. good thing the child rapist isn’t stealing from the church because he’d be ex’d in a heartbeat. guess i’ll just tell him to keep givin’ it the ol’ college try!

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

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

Post by JohnW »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:43 am
. . . Virtually everything you posted sidestepped DS’ questions . . .
If A = B, then
Question about A
Question about B
Questions about A, B, and C

I thought by pointing out that A does not equal B meant it was appropriate to sidestep the other questions that relied on that fact. There may be further modified questions from DS. I may be able to answer those later, although I don't want to get sucked into this thread. I don't know if I can add more than I already have.
Did you protect any members who confessed to sexually abusing others by not reporting them to law enforcement?
I'm not sure if I should answer that question. It feels like a trap or something. The simple answer is no, I did not. The only reason I answer is because the way the question stands, I can't see how anyone would ever do that.
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

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

Post by JohnW »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:06 am
JohnW wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:52 am


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. Bishops deal with situations much more complicated than that, but I'm not sure if further training is needed. If I were putting together a large organization, would it make sense to train the staff how to handle every single situation of potentially over a hundred possible outcomes? Would they remember their training when situation 143b occurs? Or would it make more sense to have a hotline with experts who can navigate the staff whenever a difficult situation occurs? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I don't think they are simple answers.



After reading my post again, I think I would like to rephrase the above to the following: "Unfortunately in these sort of cases, mistakes mean we fail to help someone who's life is completely destroyed."

I think it is important to remember that bishops are trying their best to help people who are going through life-changing heartache. Mistakes will be made, but it is similar to someone trying to rescue a person who falls overboard on a boat. I don't know if I would immediately criticize someone who throws out a life preserver but whose aim is a little off. At the same time, there is always room for improvement.
Your moral center ^ has been utterly compromised. That is what Mormonism does to a person’s ethos.

Child Rapist > i rape my kids and post it on the Internet

Bishop > this is complicated. i better send you back to your family.

A month later …

Child Rapist > I can’t seem to stop with the raping and filming and all that jazz

Bishop > ugh. this is too difficult for me to figure out as an adult with a completely screwed up moral center. i better call some lawyers!

Lawyers > ten hail marys and definitely don’t involve law enforcement.

Bishop > o-oh-okay

Child Rapist > uh, yeah, i’m still raping my kids and i have a baby on the way. just so you know. a baby. i ain’t sayin’ i’m going to do horrible things to this baby, but i’m battin’ a thousand over here, bro.

Bishop > gee, willickers. gosh. this is just such a mystery to me. welp. good thing the child rapist isn’t stealing from the church because he’d be ex’d in a heartbeat. guess i’ll just tell him to keep givin’ it the ol’ college try!

- Doc
I apologize. It looks like I have struck a nerve or something.
Post Reply