"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.
Post Reply
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

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

Post by Marcus »

Image
excellent breakdown of the errors. from https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... p_article/
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

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

Post by drumdude »

The Mormon church is a well-oiled misinformation machine. None of this surprises me anymore. Lying is as natural as breathing to the leaders of the church and their cronies who write these articles for the church.

It’s also what is causing the church to fall. You can’t lie for the church day after day like this and not have it wear your soul down.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

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

Post by Moksha »

drumdude wrote:
Sat Oct 01, 2022 4:41 am
The Mormon church is a well-oiled misinformation machine. None of this surprises me anymore.
Maybe it is like the apologetics wing of the Sinn Féin, they can be a lyin', but Mormons themselves are wonderful people.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
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 »

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.

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.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

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

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

JohnW,

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.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

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

Post by MG 2.0 »

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.

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.
Thank you for sharing your ‘on the ground’ experience. Rings true.

Regards,
MG
mcjathan
Nursery
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2020 5:11 pm

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

Post by mcjathan »

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.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

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

Post by dastardly stem »

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?
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 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.
That would have been in the best interest of the member.
No. Not close.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you giving your experience and it's good to know that there is an effort by the Church to do something good here....But it seems pretty clear, the problems persist and the church has plenty to fix.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
Doctor Steuss
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:48 pm

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

Post by Doctor Steuss »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:41 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.

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.
Thank you for sharing your ‘on the ground’ experience. Rings true.

Regards,
MG
Indeed. Thank you for confirming a perpetrator-centric approach within the Church.

Incidentally, exactly what does an "even-handed" discussion about "both sides" look like when discussing a child being raped, and a baby being molested after failed attempts at rape?
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

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

Post by Morley »

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.
Last edited by Morley on Mon Oct 03, 2022 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply