Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Mary]

So, from what I am reading from the link Doc provided, is that a confessional is protected by client/clergy privilege. Those receiving the confessional, whether they be apostle, SP or bishop are under no obligation to report. I think that needs to change. The law needs to change. The church shouldn't be dealing with criminal matters in house.

[_Mary]

Rosebud, again from my own observations, a child does not always want to report their parent. It can take years and years to decide to take it forward such is the shame and guilt. The parent might have privately apologised and so there has been a genuine sense that everyone has moved on. Tough one.

I think Ron genuinely came to suspect that his wife had been abused, I think this is the only reason he mentioned the bathing incidents with K and broached the very personal subject of their sex life.

In my view, given men's pretty consistent and strong sex drive, it would have taken a lot for Ron to finally say, no more, I can't cope with sex with you, for at least a year before papers were served. J actually gives this as a reason for the divorce.

That makes sense of his, I believe, genuine suspicions that there was some pretty harmful stuff in J's background. All this was happening before the divorce papers hit the porch floor.

[_Rosebud]

Rosebud, again from my own observations, a child does not always want to report their parent. It can take years and years to decide to take it forward such is the shame and guilt. The parent might have privately apologised and so there has been a genuine sense that everyone has moved on. Tough one.

I think Ron genuinely came to suspect that his wife had been abused, I think this is the only reason he mentioned the bathing incidents with K and broached the very personal subject of their sex life.

In my view, given men's pretty consistent and strong sex drive, it would have taken a lot for Ron to finally say, no more, I can't cope with sex with you, for at least a year before papers were served. J actually gives this as a reason for the divorce.

That makes sense of his, I believe, genuine suspicions that there was some pretty harmful stuff in J's background. All this was happening before the divorce papers hit the porch floor.

The fact that I'm saying Karren's ex-wife isn't accusing her father doesn't also mean I believe that means there is no chance that any crime occurred. Child sexual abuse happens all the time. It means that she's not making an accusation and ultimately, it's her prerogative, not her ex-husband's. She is an independent agent with emotions, desires and objectives of her own. Victims (if she is indeed a victim of childhood sexual abuse) face many binds. They are the victims' to talk about, not their ex-spouses. If Karren wants to speak publicly about childhood sexual abuse, he should be speaking about his own.

The fact that I wrote the above also does not mean I'm saying I think a crime did occur. I have no information to base any assumptions on and Karren's reports do not currently seem credible to me. If he was wronged, he has some work to do. He is not communicating effectively. He needs to focus on how he was wronged, not how other people we wronged. He wrongs other people by speaking publicly about how they were wronged.

In my experience, people make all sorts of different claims about things that went wrong in their sex lives during and after divorce. My opinion is that those things are private and shouldn't be used as public evidence of supposed crimes third parties may or may not have committed.

[_AmyJo]

Haven't yet seen this movie, but plan to this weekend. It hits close to home. Mormon church may pale in comparison, but the coverup is what's comparative. With the sexual abuse scandals that we do know of, there's an exhaustive effort by the church and its minions to silence any opposition.

"SPOTLIGHT tells the riveting true story of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe investigation that would rock the city and cause a crisis in one of the world’s oldest and most trusted institutions. When the newspaper’s tenacious “Spotlight” team of reporters delve into allegations of abuse in the Catholic Church, their year-long investigation uncovers a decades-long cover-up at the highest levels of Boston's religious, legal, and government establishment, touching off a wave of revelations around the world."

https://youtu.be/EwdCIpbTN5g

[_Rosebud]

Haven't yet seen this movie, but plan to this weekend. It hits close to home. Mormon church may pale in comparison, but the coverup is what's comparative. With the sexual abuse scandals that we do know of, there's an exhaustive effort by the church and its minions to silence any opposition.

"SPOTLIGHT tells the riveting true story of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe investigation that would rock the city and cause a crisis in one of the world’s oldest and most trusted institutions. When the newspaper’s tenacious “Spotlight” team of reporters delve into allegations of abuse in the Catholic Church, their year-long investigation uncovers a decades-long cover-up at the highest levels of Boston's religious, legal, and government establishment, touching off a wave of revelations around the world."

https://youtu.be/EwdCIpbTN5g

The Catholic church took abusive priests out of their parishes, sent them to "treatment centers" and then stationed them in new locations where they would abuse more children. The Boston Globe found the records of where the priests had been stationed, when they were taken out of duty and when they were again given access to children. Mormon policy covered the church from this kind of system-wide accusation 2.5ish decades ago through their mandatory reporting policies and legal hotline help for bishops dealing with a abuse reports, etc.

Mormon abuse is family-based and Mormons use a lay clergy giving many people access to other people's children. The Mormon church isn't as susceptible to the kind of undercover work the Boston Globe did because we don't have "celibate" priests we're moving from place to place. The Mormon susceptibility regards what information leaders may have had about how perpetrators take advantage of Mormon congregations and whether or not Mormon leaders put adequate child protection policies in place based on the information they had at the time. If a group of reporters could connect the quality of policies to the information leaders had about how abuse happens in Mormonism and even add abusive actions taken by people who were involved in policy decisions (there's a good chance Scott was involved as he did speak about the topic at the time), then there would be a very decent case.

Who will take that on? The Trib?

[_Rosebud]

A couple more thoughts just in case there are any real Spotlight-type people out there reading:

1. Article about the man who served as the Boy Scout Youth Protection Task Force Chair in the 1990s and early 2000s. He was in charge when the 2-deep rule was instituted in the scouts. The Mormon church copied that rule. He pled guilty on child porn charges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar30.html

2. The Mormon church acts as its own insurance provider. It therefore doesn't have to meet minimum policy standards that would be required by outside carriers (like background checks).

[_Mary]

Rosebud, can you explain what that means in real terms? (Self insurance - other than background checks).

[_Mary]

When I was asked to go on a yw camp just post mission, we almost got caught out by the tide on a beach walk and could have been killed. The priesthood leaders who led the walk obviously hadn't checked tide times with the coast guards who were hop skipping mad at us for being so brazenly stupid. I wonder what the self insurance implications would have been had any of us actually drowned?

[Guest]

Rosebud, can you explain what that means in real terms? (Self insurance - other than background checks).

If a wardhouse burns down, the Mormon church uses its deep pockets to build a new one. This is less expensive than the church paying for an outside insurance provider. If an abuse victim sues the church, the church pays the full settlement rather than using a third-party insurance company to cover settlement costs. This is less expensive than the church paying for liability insurance. Smaller religious groups can't get liability insurance that covers child abuse lawsuits unless they meet the specific child safety standards required by the insurance providers.

In the 90s and early 00s, for example, the Mormon church refused to spend the money to put windows on all classroom doors even though by that time, doing so was a standard child abuse prevention requirement of most insurance carriers. Getting windows up took a long time in Mormonism. The church was way behind.

In other words, the church has "insured" itself but may not be "insurable." Its child abuse prevention policies protect it from the kind of suits that are easiest to for victims to win (person x was reported to the bishop as a potential pedophile and the bishop allowed person x to continue to have contact with children and then person x abused my child -- has similarities to the systemic problem in the Catholic church) and were even initially ahead of the game in church legal self-protection but have consistently been behind the game in true child protection based on information from child protection and abuse prevention experts.



If someone could put together:

1. A compilation of what child abuse prevention measures the church wasn't taking that would have been necessary if the church had an outside insurance carrier year-by-year (compare each year's Mormon policy over the last 3 decades to the minimum and maximum insurance standards of the same calendar years in major countries like the US and the U.K.)

2. Proof that the church knew it wasn't taking these actions and that they would be helpful in preventing child abuse based specifically on the information the church had each year about how perpetrators take advantage of Mormon congregations (could use the Pace report and other letters/complaints about insufficient policy protections/legal cases against the church where abuse detailing when and how the abuse occurred if the abuse would have been prevented if the safety standards required by major insurance carriers had been in place -- Pace report is confusing and very difficult to believe, so multiple document would be necessary to demonstrate church negligence)

3. Several stories from credible victims (not their fathers or ex-spouses) that accentuate that the way the abuse occurred was related to lack of adequate prevention policies in comparison to the church's knowledge about how to prevent abuse based on documentation in number 2

4. Proof that someone at the top was even acting abusively and protecting perpetrators' ability to act against children

Then there would be a case against the church that might demonstrate systemwide predator protection and be similar to the work done by the Spotlight group, but tweaked for Mormonism. Without number 4, a case could still be made for money being more important to the church than child safety. With number 4, one could prove a systemwide coverup.



I would like someone to gather funds and project leaders and take this project on.



Edits: I tend to use less clear language when I post from my phone. I decided to come back and clean this post up a bit because I think it's important.

[_Rosebud]

And, I suppose that if something happened to Karren that has merit, his story could help with number 4. But someone would have to spend the time with him to listen to him talk to help him build a brief dated list of relevant information so that what's valid doesn't get lost in his noise. This may not be something he is capable of doing alone, to be quite frank.

His daughter would have no need to speak unless 1-3 were well established beforehand and all the dates and documentation in her father's possession really checked out (based on a qualified third party's comprehension of them). My advice to her would be to be quiet even if she is currently completely certain her grandfather hurt her. Not much is gained through her story if it's released this way and she could potentially lose a lot.

Edit: typos