Mormon leaders accused of 'covering up' a decades-long 'epidemic' of sexual abuse and incest

[yellowstone123]

From the article…

But the case revealed that a help line established in 1995 for bishops to contact when cases of abuse are reported to them connects to a Salt Lake City law firm, Kirton McConkie.

Calls are first filtered by social workers, who determine whether the information they receive is serious enough to be passed onto church attorneys, according to sealed court records obtained by The Associated Press.

The help line is operated not within the church's Department of Family Services, but its Office of Risk Management, whose role is to protect the institution from liability in a range of circumstances.

I did not know that the helpline was staffed by social workers within Kirton McConkie. Are they qualified?

It’s telling that it’s the Risk Management department’s job to oversee this. It’s always about protecting the money.

We had a Risk Management team at my old job, but they were all Social Workers a.k.a. mandated reporters. The Risk Management at my dad’s old job was called Internal Affairs. The Church’s Risk Management likely all have business degrees.

[yellowstone123]

Why blame Mormon officials for failing to report her abuser to the police when she, and her parents, also failed to report her abuser to the police??

Lots of abuse goes unreported. Abused women often don’t leave their abusive husbands, and don’t report them. Mothers of abused children often don’t report their abusive spouse. I don’t pretend to fully understand the psychology of that, but that’s why responsible third parties, such as Bishop’s and Lawyers, need to do the reporting on behalf of the victims.

All of that is separate to the very real need to highlight the systemic failures within the Church. Even if all the victims and relatives were at fault for failing to report abuse, that does not excuse Church officials and institutional systems from culpability, and mean they shouldn’t be reported and their failings publicised.

You seem to be taking the position that the evictions should stfu if they haven’t taken action themselves. Perhaps you can clarify that I'm misreading your point?

This is really true. Allegations of child abuse by a 24 year old Church Elder who is a single guy, and who empties your large trash can on Monday is treated a lot different than if the abuse is alleged to be done by a Stake President who is a surgeon and also a professor of Neurology and has eight kids who lives in a three million dollar home and pays $100,000 in tithing each year. It's sad but true.

But in California or New York if the Stake President confesses to any type of child abuse whether it be sexual, physical or maybe he backhanded his teenage daughter six months prior when she said F-off to him, which caused her lip to bleed and the Bishop doesn't call the child abuse hot line or police; if found out, the Bishop leaves himself wide open for criminal and civil sanctions.

[Dr. Shades]

Lots of abuse goes unreported. Abused women often don’t leave their abusive husbands, and don’t report them. Mothers of abused children often don’t report their abusive spouse. I don’t pretend to fully understand the psychology of that, but that’s why responsible third parties, such as Bishop’s and Lawyers, need to do the reporting on behalf of the victims.

Yes, but how many of them are bitching and moaning about OTHER people NOT reporting this?

All of that is separate to the very real need to highlight the systemic failures within the Church. Even if all the victims and relatives were at fault for failing to report abuse, that does not excuse Church officials and institutional systems from culpability, and mean they shouldn’t be reported and their failings publicised.

Right, but I'm somewhat less than fully supportive of the people who COULD have reported the abuse at any time, but instead choose to bitch and moan that others didn't do it for them.

You seem to be taking the position that the victims should stfu if they haven’t taken action themselves. Perhaps you can clarify that I'm misreading your point?

Almost, but not quite. You see, I realize it's a sad fact that church culture brainwashed so many people to report EVERYTHING to the bishop and to do (or refrain from doing) whatever the bishop says. I get that. I lose sympathy when those brainwash-ees A) turn 18 or older, AND B) figure out that the priesthood is covering it all up and get pissed off about it--whichever comes LAST--but nevertheless refuse to take matters into their own hands and go to the police after that, instead choosing to sit on it and do nothing, just like the priesthood did.

In some cases the bishops advise the families not to go to the police and make a report, that they will handle things. A quick search showed plenty of cases that this happened.

That can't be disputed. But see my last sentence in the above paragraph.

[I Have Questions]

You seem to be taking the position that the victims should stfu if they haven’t taken action themselves. Perhaps you can clarify that I'm misreading your point?

Almost, but not quite. You see, I realize it's a sad fact that church culture brainwashed so many people to report EVERYTHING to the bishop and to do (or refrain from doing) whatever the bishop says. I get that. I lose sympathy when those brainwash-ees A) turn 18 or older, AND B) figure out that the priesthood is covering it all up and get pissed off about it--whichever comes LAST--but nevertheless refuse to take matters into their own hands and go to the police after that, instead choosing to sit on it and do nothing, just like the priesthood did.

Okay, so you are saying what I thought you were saying, but you’ve added the caveat of age. So, your position is that victims of abuse who are over the age of 18 should stfu about responsible third parties not acting in their capacity to save them from abuse, if they themselves haven’t already reported the abuse.

Let’s take the example of an abused wife. She doesn’t report the abuse to police, she does mention it in a private meeting with her Doctor. Doctor doesn’t report it. It’s your position that she can never go after that Doctor, never moan about him not reporting the abuse to authorities, never complain at all that people didn’t help her stop the abuse, simply on the basis that she was too scared to report the matter herself.

Wow. Just wow.

[Dr. Shades]

Let’s take the example of an abused wife. She doesn’t report the abuse to police, she does mention it in a private meeting with her Doctor. Doctor doesn’t report it.

That depends. Did she ask her doctor to report it? Did she simply expect him to report it? Or was she just venting to someone and wanted him to remain silent for the same reasons she was keeping silent?

It’s your position that she can never go after that Doctor, never moan about him not reporting the abuse to authorities, never complain at all that people didn’t help her stop the abuse, . . .

“Help her” is a key consideration, because that implies she was making some sort of effort, too.

. . . simply on the basis that she was too scared to report the matter herself.

What if the doctor is also too scared to report the matter himself, for whatever reason? Do we extend him the same charity that we extend her, or is there a double-standard?

[Res Ipsa]

Let’s take the example of an abused wife. She doesn’t report the abuse to police, she does mention it in a private meeting with her Doctor. Doctor doesn’t report it.

That depends. Did she ask her doctor to report it? Did she simply expect him to report it? Or was she just venting to someone and wanted him to remain silent for the same reasons she was keeping silent?

It’s your position that she can never go after that Doctor, never moan about him not reporting the abuse to authorities, never complain at all that people didn’t help her stop the abuse, . . .

“Help her” is a key consideration, because that implies she was making some sort of effort, too.

. . . simply on the basis that she was too scared to report the matter herself.

What if the doctor is also too scared to report the matter himself, for whatever reason? Do we extend him the same charity that we extend her, or is there a double-standard?

Hey boss, I think there are a couple of important considerations here. One is the statute of limitations. Many states, including Utah, have no statute of limitations for civil suits based on child sex abuse. But it still has statutes of limitations for sex crimes. When Utah eliminated its statute of limitations for civil sex abuse suits, thousands of people were able to sue for damages even though the criminal statute of limitations had expired. Reporting to the police in those situations would not have any effect.

Second, child abuse can cause long term mental and emotional damage to the victim. The most important thing to me is that they get the support and help they need to live happy lives. I don't think it makes sense to judge them as if they were normally constituted adults.