Reporting abuse up the chain of command

[_Mister Scratch]

It really does help to define what we are talking about. Abuse of power, sexual abuse, physical abuse. The word "abuse" can be used in many ways.

I have never experienced any kind of abuse, of the kinds mentioned above, by any church leader. And if anyone I know has, they haven't told me about it. But I know a lot of people who think that some leader has overstepped his bounds at one time or another.

And if a Church leader were to act in the way you described, there is no excuse for not taking care of the situation. If your babysitter was telling the truth (I assume you believe there are two sides to every story, and you may not get the straight of it from one person) then she should have told her parents and they should have gone to the stake president. And if the stake president didn't do anything, the regional representative.

This seems to totally miss the point of Runtu's OP. Why should the person who was victimized have to hop from person to person, just keeping her fingers crossed that one of them will man up and do something? (And let's face it: in all likelihood, they would have done diddlysquat, since it would embarrass the Church.) My vote: go to the police, or some outside entity, because the Church itself, from an institutional standpoint, doesn't really care if you get abused by one of the leaders.

[_Gadianton]

Even better now are third-party contractors that deal with abuse reports. That provides better security against the abuse systems being manipulated from the inside with handshakes and the right last name. I highly doubt a fundamentalistic authoritarian religion like Mormonism could implement an abuse system that works very well on its own.

[_beastie]

Even better now are third-party contractors that deal with abuse reports. That provides better security against the abuse systems being manipulated from the inside with handshakes and the right last name. I highly doubt a fundamentalistic authoritarian religion like Mormonism could implement an abuse system that works very well on its own.

This is what I'd like charity to understand. The likelihood of a stake president taking the word of a fornicator over the word of a good ole' boy bishop is so small as to be zero. Moreover, members understand this.

[_Pokatator]

Hi Tori...

Welcome to the board.

I completely agree with you.

How anyone in her/his right mind thinks it is appropriate for young girls, teenagers, or even boys to be alone behind closed doors with a grown neighbor man asking questions about their sexuality is BEYOND ME!

I can hardly believe that this still happens.

~dancer~

Thank you, T-Dancer!

I remember how mortified I was when I would "confess" a little petting to my Bishop as a teenager. Why are these kids required to do this? What could possibly be positive about an experience such as that? I think that parents should be in attendance....especially during the interview. I wonder if a Bishop would then ask a young man about masturbation......I kinda think not.

Welcome to the board Tori. But Bishops do ask young men about masturbation.

I do agree with you that parental involvement is totally needed.

[_charity]

My babysitter was an adult woman who had had a baby as the result of the indiscretion. It was hardly hidden from anyone. I was no longer a member of the church by that time. I suspect that's part of the reason she felt comfortable telling me her story.

Simply going to a person of higher priesthood power, within the same chain, isn't the best solution, due to familiarity issues. That's why many organizations set up a separate system to deal with abuses.

I really don't remember if my babysitter reported the abuse to the stake president. But look at what you've just done, charity. You automatically insinuated that she wasn't telling the full story. She was a fornicator, after all, dealing with moral issues. Why do you imagine that the stake president would have reacted any differently?

Sorry to have misunderstood. In the circles I run in, we refer to adults who care for our children as "child care providers." "Babysitter" is a term reserved for teenagers.

I don't know about the bishops and stake presidents you have known. The ones I have known would have grabbed that bishop by his ears and demanded to know what the heck he thought he was doing. And then the bishop would have been replaced the next week.

You demand that I look at what I am doing. I DID NOT insinuate the young woman wasn't telling the full story because she was a sinner. I said that you can't always trust you are getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Period. It doesn't matter what circumstance. You are the one who assumed that I was making an assumption based on a fact. I am skeptical. If my kid came home and told me the teacher had said he was the greatest kid in the whole 3rd grade, I would be a little skeptical of that, too. Even though I would think my kid was the greated kid in the whole 3rd grade.

From what I have seen here, I think one of the most often displayed behaviors of critics is that of jumping to conclusions. Well, that and paranoia.

[_beastie]

I don't know about the bishops and stake presidents you have known. The ones I have known would have grabbed that bishop by his ears and demanded to know what the heck he thought he was doing. And then the bishop would have been replaced the next week.

Now, this is odd. You claim to know NO ONE who has had such problems with a priesthood leader, but now claim to be able to know what priesthood leaders would have done in that scenario. How in the world would you know what they would have done, if you've never seen this occur?

From what I have seen here, I think one of the most often displayed behaviors of critics is that of jumping to conclusions. Well, that and paranoia.

This coming from the woman who recently declared that IF the church is true, (and she "knows" it is), we are delusional, crazy people. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you, or to translate, just because apostates think that Mormons think poorly of them doesn't mean Mormons DON'T think poorly of them. ("poorly" as in sinful, lazy, proud and, in the latest iLDS fad, psychologically troubled)

[_moksha]

Runtu specifically cited "abuse", charity.

For example, years ago my babysitter stopped going to church because her bishop kept calling her into his office to rehash the gory details of a sexual indiscretion. He wanted to hear about it over and over. She felt certain he was doing this for private titillation, particularly since the male member of the indiscretion was never repeatedly questioned.

I suppose she told the story too well. It does sound like he was abusing her by the continuous retelling of the story.

So are situations of abuse rectifiable within the Church? The only solution to the above that I can see would be for her to immediately recognize what was happening and refuse to be part of it. However, it seems that some type of problem solving mechanism within the Church should exist as well. I wonder how other Churches would handle a similar situation?

[_Pokatator]

From what I have seen here, I think one of the most often displayed behaviors of Charity is that of jumping to conclusions, flying off the handle and running off at the mouth. Well, that and paranoia.

[_Tori]

Hi Tori...

Welcome to the board.

I completely agree with you.

How anyone in her/his right mind thinks it is appropriate for young girls, teenagers, or even boys to be alone behind closed doors with a grown neighbor man asking questions about their sexuality is BEYOND ME!

I can hardly believe that this still happens.

~dancer~

Thank you, T-Dancer!

I remember how mortified I was when I would "confess" a little petting to my Bishop as a teenager. Why are these kids required to do this? What could possibly be positive about an experience such as that? I think that parents should be in attendance....especially during the interview. I wonder if a Bishop would then ask a young man about masturbation......I kinda think not.

Welcome to the board Tori. But Bishops do ask young men about masturbation.

I do agree with you that parental involvement is totally needed.

Yes, I know that Bishops ask young men about masturbation. I've heard that some are asking Young Women about it, also.
I found this out only a few years ago,(I'm a life long member of 52 years) and I was appalled. My friend told me about one of her sons interviews with our old Bishop and how when he talked to him about masturbation, her son didn't really know what he was talking about at the age of 12 and it scared him.

I was startled. I mean....in this day and age, with all of the problems in society with sexual/child abuse, these men think that it is appropriate to discuss this?

I made my mental exit from the Church about 3 years ago. In that time, my son turned 12. He has not been ordained a Deacon. One of the reasons is that I will not stand for an interview of that nature, period. It makes it hard, however, because his best friends in the neighborhood are very active and involved with the Mormon Church. We have sort of slowly drifted off into inactivity. He does some of the activities, but very little with Scouts. In some ways I feel like I'm depriving him from those experiences in other ways I feel like I'm protecting him from some indoctrination I don't want him to have and also from a humiliating interview.

Oh, Yeah......I'm a single Mom.

[_charity]

From what I have seen here, I think one of the most often displayed behaviors of Charity is that of jumping to conclusions, flying off the handle and running off at the mouth. Well, that and paranoia.

Oh, please. Beastie said I made assumptions about her babysitter that I never made, and I am the one who jumps to conclusions?

Oh, about the babysitter. Yes I did jump to a conclusion. In my sphere, we refer to adults who take care of our children as "child care providers." We use the term "babysitter" for a teenager. So, yes, I jumped to a conclusion. But not that her babysitter was not to be believed because she was "sinful."

I just tend to be skeptical. Trust but verify. Do you really think "trust but don't verify" is a good way to make decisions?