when does church discipline get involved?

[johnshaw]

Just trying to clarify my thinking: What if there's a new victim and the contact between perpetrator and victim was through a church calling? Could someone make the case (or at least drag the church into court) that since a member of the church was aware of the danger (although that person is not the Bishop) and there was no action by "the church" to prevent contact then "the church" should be punished? I know it sounds like a long shot but I certainly wouldn't want to be the one whose action/inaction were responsible for the church being dragged into something like that.

I couldn't give a good glory and all the angels and flowers on earth if the church or the individual has consequences... PREVENT FURTHER ABUSE. Take the day off work, research your legal stuff but do not let harm come to another human on your watch.

[russellhltn]

Could someone make the case (or at least drag the church into court) that since a member of the church was aware of the danger (although that person is not the Bishop) and there was no action by "the church" to prevent contact then "the church" should be punished?

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The question is if it would be successful. It strikes me as a long shot to go after the church for what a individual member who isn't a leader does or doesn't do. Particularly if they are prevented by workplace confidentiality.

Another possible course of action - inform the work place about this person's involvement in church. Let them contact the bishop.

[lajackson]

There are laws that cover all of this. There are laws against abuse. There are laws concerning confidentiality. There are laws about reporting.

And then there are moral laws that govern right and wrong, our involvement with others, and our responsibilities to our fellow man.

You learn what they are. You damage as few lives as possible. You do what you are supposed to do. Every circumstance is different. Every state is different. There are not enough details in the original post to provide a detailed answer.

Lacking those details, correct principles are mentioned and then the person takes them and makes the best decision they can.

In my experience, all restrictions notwithstanding, there are ways to communicate anything to anyone and still remain within proper boundaries. There are ways to let a bishop know he might wish to give special attention to a particular member or family without giving the bishop any details at all.

[gregwanderson]

There are laws concerning confidentiality. There are laws about reporting.

It seems to me that the confidentiality issue is already a problem here. The original post didn't say whether his "confidential source" had anything to do with work or was just gossip. But here's the thing: There are people who participate in this forum who have access and can know Mr. Dove's real identity, the ward he lives in, who his Bishop is, etc. They could look up the directory of his ward and identify every man who has children, giving them a list of several dozen men. Even if they didn't know which one of them is accused of abuse they would know that his name is somewhere on that list.

Am I wrong about this? In the past, when someone has mentioned a specific issue with records in their ward (which had nothing to do with criminal investigations but, rather, was some kind of bug in MLS) the response (sometimes from a church employee) has indicated that the responder was able to easily look into their ward's records.

[gregwanderson]

PREVENT FURTHER ABUSE.

Yes, obviously. This includes preventing the church from becoming a victim in this case.

[eblood66]

Am I wrong about this? In the past, when someone has mentioned a specific issue with records in their ward (which had nothing to do with criminal investigations but, rather, was some kind of bug in MLS) the response (sometimes from a church employee) has indicated that the responder was able to easily look into their ward's records.

Every instance of this that I'm aware of the response was from a church employee. Those employees are under strict rules about accessing membership records. Accessing a membership record for personal curiosity (as opposed to a work related issue like tracking down a problem in MLS or CDOL) would be grounds for immediate dismissal. They might even be subject to criminal prosecution. They must also either have a temple recommend or an equivalent endorsement from their bishop or ecclesiastical leader which, of course, requires a declaration that they are and will be honest.

I'm pretty sure that no member of the forum who isn't a church employee has any ability to find the real identity of any participant of the forum.

[lajackson]

There are laws concerning confidentiality. There are laws about reporting.

It seems to me that the confidentiality issue is already a problem here. The original post didn't say whether his "confidential source" had anything to do with work or was just gossip. But here's the thing: There are people who participate in this forum who have access and can know Mr. Dove's real identity, the ward he lives in, who his Bishop is, etc.

Community Moderators cannot do this. I do not believe the Administrators can do this, either. As eblood66 pointed out, there are a few Church employees who would be able to do this. In this particular situation, I very much suspect they would call the help line before they even thought about doing any such thing.

In the particular situation of the original poster, and in the state where I live, gossip does not arise to the level of confidentiality protection, and the information must be reported to the legal authorities. But again, we do not know the reason for the confidentiality nor do we know enough about the situation to do anything about it. I trust that the original poster is watching the suggestions given here and acting appropriately.

And just for fun, despite the concern, my crystal ball says the bishop already does know about the situation. That does not relieve any reporting requirements, of course, but the reporting has already been done. In this situation, the issue has turned to the desire to protect other members and the Church. As I said earlier, there are plenty of ways to key in the bishop if needed.

[russellhltn]

I do not believe the Administrators can do this, either.

I can see things like email address (from LDS Account), what "group" they fall in (are they a member or employee) and anything specifically shared in the forum profile. Beyond that, I have no rights beyond what any other member with the same ward/stake calling has. Sometimes the clues given is enough to yield success in the CDOL. But more often, it doesn't.