- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The Church just released updated guidance on church interviews, focused specifically on trying to help prevent abuse by leaders in that setting, as well as abuse itself. It included an explicit directive to train all local leaders on the changes, including all auxiliary leaders. My favorite part is the clear statements about abuse.
Quote:“Members should NEVER be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe.”
“Church leaders should NEVER disregard a report of abuse or counsel a member not to report criminal activity to law enforcement personnel.”
I might have gone further with regard to interviews, but I like it as a good first step – especially the focus on letting the interviewee choose the accompanying person.
First time it explicitly says that the youth can have another adult (parent) in an interview. Many stories of Bishops pushing back when parents ask to be in the interview. I wonder how this will be conveyed to parents/children that they have a choice? Wow a big first step for them. I hope there is more to come. There’s a lot to like about the policy and handbook changes, which is hard to remember when you’re agitating for greater changes (as I am). Here’s one of my favorite parts: Quote:
Most, but not all, allegations of abuse are true, and should be taken seriously and handled with great care.
(I would have removed “but not all” because it softens “most” too much, and maybe had something about how allegations of abuse often start out understated while the victim reclaims his or her moral authority and grip on reality. But this is fine as it is – brevity is good – especially if it’s accompanied by training.)
If I have my facts straight, statements along the lines of “take allegations seriously” have appeared in church materials infrequently – possibly only once. (IIRC, “believe the victim” was in an Ensign article about abuse years ago.) This idea hasn’t been emphasized enough, in the church or out. The recent Joseph Bishop scandal, in which the victim in Colorado claims to have brought up her attempted rape 10 times and was dismissed each time, highlights the need for leaders to be instructed that most allegations are true. (If she seems too unreliable or just uncorroborated, there’s plenty of other abuse and subsequent dismissal in the recent past that will do.)
The one thing that confuses me is that by not
requiringanother adult to be present when interviewing minors, the church leaves its good bishops vulnerable to false allegations by malicious or unstable people, and its youth vulnerable to predatory bishops. One possibility is that they’re trying to ensure that kids who are abused at home have a safe space to talk about it – and sadly, kids are much more likely to be abused by a parent than by a bishop. Another possibility is that they believe strongly that a bishop needs to be able to grill youth about the details of LoC and WoW violations, and having a parent in the room would make kids clam up. Another is that they believe strongly that youth should be free to confess any LoC and WoW violations, and having a parent in the room would keep kids from bringing them up. My money is on all three, with the church talking about giving abused kids a safe space, and not talking about grilling or confession until dragged into a discussion about them. Many people who signed Sam’s petition regard detailed questions about sexual things as spiritual abuse and as grooming for sexual abuse.
Maybe a good solution would be to separate confession from worthiness interviews somehow.
It is a good step, but I see this as a result of not only Sam Young’s pressure, but also the intense PR $#!+storm the church is under with all of the sexual abuse by leaders. They had to do something to show they were listening – both to members and to the greater world starting to take notice. The nice thing is Sam Young gets a breather. There were whispers of excommunication heading his way. This may cut him free from that. As to making it work – enough parents were signing Sam’s petitions or discussing it. If each of them hold to it and pass the word, it won’t matter about the Bishop.
The ball is now in our court. We should use if For The Win.
I care about why it happened, because I care about the pain that caused it to need to happen. Otherwise, I don’t care why it happened and am not going to discount it based on why it happened. At the most basic, foundational level, I am glad it happened and am willing to give props for making it happen. It proves the leadership listens, albeit in an extreme case in this instance, and that is an important thing that should be celebrated.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.